Law in Force, Justice in Doubt: Does Impunity Encourage Sexual Violence?
CFRPSAIL Law in Force, Justice in Doubt: Does Impunity Encourage Sexual Violence? Article Eshal Nasrullah Justice August 26, 2026 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