Amnesty International, Front Line Defenders (FLD), and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) have issued strong condemnations following the life sentences handed down to Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) leaders Dr. Mahrang Baloch and Sibghatullah Shahji. These organizations have called for the immediate release of the activists or the withdrawal of their convictions, criticizing the judicial process and treatment of human rights defenders.

The organizations expressed concern over what they described as the misuse of anti-terror laws in Pakistan. They argued that these laws are being cynically exploited to silence peaceful dissent and suppress activism within the Baloch community. Their statements highlight growing fears over the erosion of legal protections for activists and critics of the government.

Amnesty International specifically emphasized that the verdict demonstrated how Pakistan’s anti-terrorism legislation is being “cynically misused” to silence voices of dissent. The organization condemned the verdict as an affront to the right to a fair trial and due process, raising alarm over the fairness of the judicial proceedings.

According to Amnesty, the trial was conducted secretly and expeditiously within jail premises, raising serious concerns about adherence to international fair trial standards. The organization pointed out that such procedures undermine transparency and accountability in the judicial process, especially in cases involving political activists.

No direct evidence was presented linking Dr. Mahrang or Sibghatullah to the violence during the 2024 “Baloch Raaji Muchi” gathering in Gwadar, Amnesty stated. The activists have maintained their innocence, and the lack of concrete evidence further questions the legitimacy of the convictions.

Amnesty also highlighted that Dr. Mahrang was arrested in March 2025 following a peaceful sit-in protest. Since her arrest, she has been named in more than two dozen anti-terrorism cases across Pakistan, making her legal situation increasingly complex and difficult to defend.

The organization noted that the volume of cases against her was so high that her legal team struggled to track them or provide effective representation. This situation underscores the harsh realities faced by activists caught in a system that often denies them fair legal procedures.

Both Dr. Mahrang and Sibghatullah had boycotted the proceedings, citing repeated denial of a fair trial. Amnesty reported that a state-appointed defense lawyer later represented them without consulting them, and their participation was limited to video links during later court stages, further undermining their rights.

The verdict implicated Dr. Mahrang for participating in the protest gathering and allegedly delivering an inciting speech. The speech reportedly described state officials as “occupiers,” but Amnesty questioned how such remarks could legally meet the thresholds for murder or terrorism charges.

Sibghatullah was accused of being part of a crowd that moved towards Frontier Corps personnel, an incident that formed the basis of the case against him. Amnesty emphasized that the evidence linking them to violence was weak or non-existent.

The organization strongly asserted that Dr. Mahrang and Shahji are being targeted solely for their human rights work. They called for their immediate release and the dropping of all charges related to their activism, framing their convictions as politically motivated.

Amnesty pointed out that at least three Baloch protesters had been killed during mobilization efforts, yet no one had been charged or held accountable for their deaths. This lack of justice for the victims further highlights systemic issues in handling dissent and protests.

Front Line Defenders (FLD) also condemned the sentences, criticizing the conduct of the trial. The Ireland-based organization noted that the trial was conducted inside a jail and that the activists had been falsely charged in connection with the death of Frontier Corps personnel.

FLD expressed particular concern about the fairness and transparency of the trial process. The organization highlighted issues with video-link hearings and the lack of proper legal representation, calling these practices inconsistent with international standards for justice.

The organization issued a strong statement, calling for the immediate dropping of all charges and sentences against Dr. Mahrang and Sibghatullah. They expressed unwavering solidarity with Baloch human rights defenders and activists, emphasizing the importance of defending their rights.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) also voiced its disapproval of the convictions. HRCP stated it “deplored” the verdicts and criticized the broader approach of the state towards advocacy and activism.

HRCP pointed out that the government’s policy of equating advocacy for fundamental rights with militancy has led to unfair and prejudiced judicial decisions. They expressed concern that these actions are damaging the space for legitimate activism and dissent in Balochistan.

The commission urged the authorities to review the anti-terrorism court’s decision promptly. It called for a transparent investigation and a fair review process to ensure justice and uphold human rights standards.

HRCP further emphasized the need for political dialogue in Balochistan. They urged the government to initiate meaningful negotiations and address the underlying issues fueling unrest and activism in the region.

In conclusion, the condemnations from international and Pakistani human rights organizations highlight serious concerns over the misuse of anti-terror laws and the suppression of peaceful activism in Balochistan. The calls for justice underscore the urgent need for fair legal processes and political engagement to resolve ongoing conflicts.