It is no longer a farfetched theory that humans would have mastered commercial space travel. Tens of hundreds of people will be willing to pay to be sent into orbit in a spaceship. Many may want to stand out from the crowd and feel the desire to enter into holy matrimony or a couple might want to give birth to a child in outer space, just for the sheer thrill of it. With the man’s propensity to err and commit crimes, it doesn’t take long for him to get into unrighteousness. What of a scheming spouse? A space traveller who solely travelled with an intent to make it even with a sworn enemy? A smuggled firearm? A rapist? A dead body found onboard the ship? What if someone were to fall through the cracks and crevices and was able to get away with space murder? Authorities will surely have to figure out the jurisdiction and bring the perpetrators to justice. But would it be as easy as it seemed? Who and what currently hold the jurisdiction to try criminalities committed in space or a planet? For instance, Mars or the Moon? Would the laws differ for someone who commits a crime on Mars from someone who commits the same crimes on the Moon? Aren’t Mars and Moon two different planets and require their own set of laws? Wouldn’t it be unfair to apply manmade earthly laws to try criminal behaviour on a planet other than the Earth? With the different atmospheric pressures and a whole different territory, how will criminal negligence be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? What of the requirements of witnesses to prove the alleged commission of a crime? What if the witnesses are citizens of different nationalities? Up until today, no one has been subjected to criminal behaviour in space but that is surely bound to change in the not so distant future. The best applicable laws in space would be those applicable in International Waters and Antarctica or the laws applied to an offender travelling in a foreign country To investigate a murder or a rape allegation will require far more probe on part of the law enforcement agencies and will surely raise issues of complex jurisdictional issues. The spacefaring companies will have to mention the provisions in the contracts beforehand and will have to make do with the laws legislated on the Earth, up until a new set of laws is legislated specifically catering to the space and planets in outer space. Currently, the law, which makes the most sense would be the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. In Article VIII of the treaty, it states that whenever one of the nations that are a party to the treaty launches an object i.e. a spacecraft, satellite or space station, into space, or builds one on a celestial body, that nation retains jurisdiction and control over it. Furthermore, they will bear responsibility for the actions of the personnel aboard their craft. For example, if a commercialised shuttle from Mongolia sees an act of violence amongst its crew members, injuring those involved, Mongolia would be the entity held responsible for legal repercussions. The same doesn’t hold for personnel from different nationalities on the International Space Station or the ISS. In the case of the ISS, an intergovernmental agreement signed in 1998 mandates that the home country of the offender will handle any investigation or prosecution. If the victim is a national of another country, that country will have the right to inquire as to the criminal status of the offender and seek to have jurisdiction over the matter if they feel justice isn’t being dispensed. What of an astronaut, who out of envy for his colleague, decides to murder, when on a spacewalk? Since they were not bound by any nation’s registered vessel, the best applicable laws would be those applicable in International Waters and Antarctica or the laws applied to an offender travelling in a foreign country. But let’s assume the jurisdiction to try the case is narrowed down to one sovereign country. Investigating the crime, gathering evidence, witnessing testimonies and securing the crime scene will be a stringent task. It will be nearly impossible to perform the tasks promptly, and the rate at which the human body decomposes might be different than it does on Earth. To prove beyond reasonable doubt of malicious intent of the perpetrator will be extremely difficult for the prosecutor to prove. The defence, on the other hand, would be alleging defects in spacesuits and pointing at other hazards in the space. The Antarctic Treaty, signed by 54 states, is the closest thing to space crime that the law enforcement has yet encountered. Since Antarctica is unaffiliated with any country, the signatories to the agreement have agreed the perpetrator of an alleged crime is to be tried under their home country’s jurisdiction. A person or an entity, which commits criminal behaviour in space would most certainly be held responsible, but would the prosecutor ever be able to make a solid case and find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt remains something of a mystery and uncharted. The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Pakistan, a member of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn and the International Bar Association