American journalist Daniel Pearl’s parents have told the Pakistan Supreme Court that the motive behind their son’s brutal murder was not personal enmity but a ploy to intimidate not only the Pakistani government but other countries and organisations as well, Tribune reported.

Last April, the Sindh High Court (SHC) set aside the detention of four men – including British-born Pakistani Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh – who were convicted by an anti-terrorism court in 2002 for Pearl's murder.

The verdict was challenged by the PPP-led Sindh government and Pearl’s parents in the top court.

Last month, in its 2-1 majority judgment in the Pearl murder case, the Supreme Court held that the entire evidence in the case was full of doubts and the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the four accused, including Sheikh.

The parents of the Wall Street Journal journalist then filed a review petition against the verdict on Friday.

“The respondent No 2 [Sheikh) was arrested in the year 1999 in relation to the kidnapping of foreigners in India and remained in an Indian prison till December, 1999,” read the petition submitted by Pearl's parents to the court through their counsel Faisal Siddiqi.

“Thereafter, the respondent No 2 was released from an Indian prison and sent to Afghanistan in exchange for passengers aboard on a hijacked airliner,” it added.

"It is submitted that under Article 21, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the past criminal history of an accused person as evidence can be relied upon.”

The petition further read that it had never been the petitioners’ case that Sheikh should be punished for his crimes previously committed in India.

“Therefore, there is no need to produce documents related to the said case in evidence in the trial court and confront respondent No 2 with these documents.”

The review petition stated that one of the central questions involved in this case was whether or not the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused would trump all other issues for duties imposed on the court.

“The right to fair trial, as provided under the Constitution, 1973, does not cast an artificially heavier onus on the prosecution to meet standards of proof beyond human capacity,” the plea added.

The review petition further stated that the prosecution had proved the charge of kidnapping/abduction for ransom of the deceased person, against respondent No 2.

(SAM)