Law in Force, Justice in Doubt: Does Impunity Encourage Sexual Violence?

Pakistan has strengthened its laws against sexual violence, but when investigation, prosecution and accountability remain uncertain, can severe punishment alone deter offenders?

Keywords:   Pakistan, Justice, Law, Enforcement, Investigation, Sexual Violence, Prosecution, Accountability.

Introduction:

It has become disturbingly common to open the news in Pakistan and encounter yet another report of sexual violence. Sometimes the victim is a child; sometimes a young woman; sometimes someone of another age or gender. Some cases provoke national outrage, dominate television screens and social media, and draw immediate attention from the authorities. Others disappear from public conversation almost as quickly as they entered it.

What disturbs me most is not only the brutality of these crimes, but the question that follows them: what happens after the headlines fade? Pakistan has extensive legal provisions addressing rape. Section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code defines rape in gender-neutral terms, while the law provides severe punishments and successive reforms have introduced specialised mechanisms intended to strengthen investigation, prosecution, victim protection and access to justice.^[1] Yet the existence of strong laws does not necessarily ensure that justice reaches those they are intended to protect.

The path from complaint to accountability can be affected by defective investigation, mishandling of forensic evidence, delays in medical examination and trial, pressure on survivors and witnesses, and inconsistent implementation of specialised legal mechanisms. These failures raise a question that goes beyond the severity of punishment: what deterrent force does a harsh sentence carry if accountability itself remains uncertain?

Sexual violence has complex causes, and impunity cannot simply be declared its sole cause. But where institutional failures repeatedly weaken cases and delay accountability, it becomes necessary to ask whether persistent impunity may itself weaken the deterrent force of law.

1. Defective Investigation and Forensic Failures

The outcome of a criminal trial depends substantially on the quality and reliability of the evidence placed before the court. In rape cases, failures at the investigation stage can therefore have consequences that cannot easily be repaired during trial. A 2026 rape appeal before the Lahore High Court exposed serious deficiencies in the investigation and prosecution of the case. Important records had not been collected, while the handling and chain of custody of DNA evidence had not been adequately documented. The Court identified poor investigation, weak prosecution and mishandling of forensic evidence among the factors contributing to low conviction rates.^[2]

This distinction is important when discussing acquittals. An acquittal should not automatically be treated as a failure of justice; the prosecution must prove guilt according to the required legal standard. The concern arises when investigative failures themselves weaken the evidence upon which that determination depends. If crucial evidence is never collected, properly preserved or reliably presented before the court, the strength of the punishment prescribed by law becomes secondary to a more immediate problem: whether the case can be proved at all.

2. Delay in Medical Examination and Trial

Delay can weaken a rape case long before a final judgment is delivered. A study of 63 contested-acquittal rape cases in Lodhran found that, although the applicable law required such cases to be decided within 90 days, the cases examined took an average of 560 days from the registration of the FIR to the final decision. The study also found delays exceeding 72 hours in the medical examination of victims in 52 of the 63 cases.^[3] Such delays are particularly significant in sexual-offence cases, where timely medico-legal examination may be crucial to the collection and preservation of evidence.

Delay is therefore not merely a matter of inconvenience or administrative inefficiency. As proceedings stretch over months or years, evidence may become more difficult to preserve, witness participation may become more difficult to sustain, and survivors may be required to remain engaged with the justice process for prolonged periods. When justice depends upon timely evidence and effective proceedings, excessive delay can affect not only when justice is delivered, but whether it remains achievable at all.

3. Survivor and Witness Vulnerability

The ability of a case to proceed also depends on whether survivors and witnesses are adequately protected and supported throughout the justice process. Research on sexual-violence cases in Pakistan has identified barriers including victim-blaming, intimidation, difficulties in accessing medico-legal services, and inadequate legal and psychosocial support. Shortages of adequately trained medico-legal personnel can create further barriers to survivors seeking timely examination.^[4]

Social pressure can create an additional obstacle. The Lodhran study documented cases in which victims or witnesses retracted their statements, highlighting the vulnerability of testimony during the course of proceedings.^[5] When survivors or witnesses face intimidation, social pressure or inadequate institutional support, their continued participation in proceedings can become increasingly difficult.

A justice system cannot measure access to justice only by whether a complaint can be filed; it must also consider whether a survivor can safely and meaningfully remain part of the process until its conclusion.

4. Selective and Inconsistent Implementation

The existence of specialised legal mechanisms is meaningful only when they are applied consistently. In Yasir v. The State, the Lahore High Court examined failures to implement specialised investigation requirements under the Anti-Rape framework. According to data placed before the Court, 34,249 cases concerning scheduled offences were registered across Punjab between January and July 2021, yet the investigation requirements of the Ordinance had not been complied with in a single case. Lack of resources and institutional capacity were among the reasons cited for this non-compliance.^[6]

Equally significant was the Court’s criticism of “selective justice.” High-profile cases could receive substantial state resources and investigative attention, while ordinary cases did not necessarily receive the same response.^[7] This raises an issue of equality that goes beyond administrative efficiency. The effectiveness of a legal safeguard should not depend upon the visibility of a case, the influence surrounding it, or the intensity of public attention it receives.

There has nevertheless been progress. A 2025 government review reported improvements in the availability and utilisation of Anti-Rape Crisis Cells and progress towards operationalising the Sex Offenders Register, while also acknowledging the need for continued coordination and implementation.^[8] This suggests that the problem is not an absence of reform, but the challenge of ensuring that reform operates consistently.

A victim should not need a headline before the protections already guaranteed by law begin to work.

Impunity and Deterrence:

The preceding factors lead to the central question: does impunity encourage sexual violence? The answer requires caution. Sexual violence has complex social, psychological and institutional causes, and the evidence examined here does not establish that impunity directly causes sexual offending in Pakistan. What it does allow us to examine is whether uncertainty of accountability can weaken the deterrent effect of law.

Deterrence research provides an important perspective. The U.S. National Institute of Justice has observed that the certainty of being caught is a more powerful deterrent than simply increasing the severity of punishment, and that increasing already lengthy sentences may add relatively little deterrent effect.^[9] Research examining adult sex crimes has also identified potential deterrent effects associated with sex-offender registration and notification policies, although that evidence comes from outside Pakistan and must therefore be applied cautiously to the Pakistani context.^[10]

This distinction between severity and certainty is particularly relevant to Pakistan. Severe punishment may demonstrate society’s condemnation of rape, but punishment can deter only to the extent that an offender believes there is a meaningful possibility of being investigated, prosecuted and held accountable. If accountability appears uncertain, the threat of a severe sentence may lose some of its deterrent force.

Impunity, therefore, should not be presented as the sole explanation for sexual violence. But persistent uncertainty of accountability may nevertheless weaken the law’s deterrent effect.

A Question of Accountability:

The discussion of selective implementation leaves questions that cannot be directed at the law alone. This raises an important question for the authorities: if specialised mechanisms and investigative resources can be mobilised when a case becomes high-profile, why should an ordinary victim receive anything less? Is justice somehow more urgent when a victim is influential, wealthy or visible? A victim is a victim, whether rich or poor, powerful or unknown. Every life deserves the same protection of law.

But accountability cannot be demanded from institutions alone. The question also extends to citizens: on what basis do we so readily call Pakistan a “lawless country”? Have we asked where justice actually breaks down? When a horrific case appears in the headlines, there is outrage for days or weeks. But when those headlines disappear, why do we stop asking what happened to the investigation, the survivor and the case? Why do we not continue demanding answers from the institutions entrusted with enforcing our laws?

The consequences of these failures do not remain inside police stations and courtrooms; they enter our homes and shape the way we live. Parents hesitate before allowing their daughters to go out alone. Women leave their homes carrying a fear that should never become normal: will I return home safely? This fear cannot be answered merely by pointing to severe punishments written in a statute. People must be able to trust that when the law is needed, the institutions behind it will work.

So, my question to both citizens and authorities is simple: how long will we allow our outrage to fade with public attention? Citizens must continue to question, and institutions must be prepared to answer. Human lives should not be reduced to statistics that disappeared with yesterday’s news.

It is time to stand up before repeated failures become something we simply learn to accept. The victim whose case we ignore today could tomorrow be someone from our own family, our community, or even one of us. As citizens, we have a responsibility to demand that law be more than mere ink on paper. If these failures continue unchecked, we should be deeply concerned about what the future may hold. The law must not merely exist; it must protect, respond and deliver justice when people need it most.

Conclusion:

Pakistan’s response to sexual violence cannot be measured by the severity of its laws alone. The real test is whether those laws produce a credible and consistent path to accountability.

The answer, therefore, is not simply harsher punishment or another law after every horrific case. It is a justice system in which investigation is competent, evidence is protected, survivors are supported, proceedings are timely, and legal safeguards operate equally for every victim. Justice must not depend on headlines, wealth, influence or status. It must be certain enough to deter, accessible enough to protect and equal enough to deserve public trust.

The law may be in force, but justice cannot be assured until accountability is equally certain for every victim.

________________________________________

[1] Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, ss. 375–376; Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, Act No. XXX of 2021.

[2] Wajih Ahmad Sheikh, “LHC Spells Out Reasons for Low Conviction Rate in Punjab,” Dawn, 10 May 2026.

[3] Fatima Yasmin Bokhari and Sevim Saadat, Accountability for Rape: A Case Study of Lodhran, Centre for Human Rights, University College Lahore, 2019, supported by the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative.

[4] Equality Now, Legal Response to Sexual Violence in Pakistan: Challenges in Enforcement and Access to Justice, 1 April 2026, DOI: 10.64185/PPPP0141.

[5] Bokhari and Saadat, Accountability for Rape: A Case Study of Lodhran.

[6] Yasir v. The State and another, PLD 2022 Lahore 263 (Lahore High Court), Crl. Misc. No. 43708-B of 2021, decided 6 August 2021.

[7] RSIL, “Implementation of Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Ordinance (ITO) 2020.”

[8] Press Information Department, Government of Pakistan, “Anti-Rape Special Committee Reviews Implementation of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021,” PR No. 107, 14 January 2025.

[9] National Institute of Justice, Five Things About Deterrence, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, May 2016, NCJ 247350.

[10] Jin-Hong Park, Dipankar Bandyopadhyay and Elizabeth Letourneau, “Examining Deterrence of Adult Sex Crimes: A Semi-Parametric Intervention Time-Series Approach,” Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, vol. 69 (2014), pp. 198–207, DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2013.08.004.