The prosecutors fired a broadside at the New York-based global rights body Human Rights Watch (HRW) for publishing a ‘contemptuous’ report over the International Crimes Tribunal’s judgment on former Jamaat-e-Islami ameer Ghulam Azam, a 1971 war crimes convict.
While placing arguments for two hours and 45 minutes in favour of issuing a contempt rule upon the HRW, the prosecutors termed its report biased, baseless, fabricated and of mala fide intention and most unethically commented while the appeals are pending at the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
“By publishing the report through HRW’s website and thereby scandalising the tribunal (ICT-1) without providing any cogent evidence have tended to bring it into hatred or contempt and or have done an act which constitutes contempt of the tribunal,” argued the prosecutors , referring to the section 11 (4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973.
The section 11 (4) of the ICT Act reads: “A tribunal may punish any person, who obstructs or abuses its process or disobeys any of its orders or directions, or does anything which tends to prejudice the case of a party before it or tends to bring it or any of its members into hatred or contempt, or does anything which constitute contempt of the tribunal, with simple imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to Taka 5000, or with both.” Terming the report an arrant lie and figment of imagination that goes beyond its limit, the prosecutors also said the HRW report was not made in good faith and undermined the ICT and its process of exercising its independent judicial functions and also fair trial.
The prosecutors were critical of the HRW role and declined to accept it an independent global human rights watchdog saying, “It runs to carry out its own hidden agenda.” The prosecutors urged the tribunal to issue a contempt notice asking the HRW, represented by its board of directors, and its Executive Director, Asia Division, Brad Adams, and Associate, Asia Division, Storm Tiv, to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for publishing ‘contemptuous’ report.
On July 15, the ICT-1 sentenced Ghulam Azam to 90 years’ imprisonment finding him guilty of all five charges of the 1971 crimes against humanity and genocide against him. Ghulam Azam has appealed against the verdict before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court while the prosecution appealed against inadequate sentencing of the former Jamaat chief.
After a month of pronouncement of the judgment, the HRW on August 16 released a report on its website headlined ‘Bangladesh: Azam conviction based on flawed proceedings: Analysis outlines how fair trial rights of accused seriously compromised’, claimed that the trial of the former Jamaat-e-Islami chief was deeply flawed and it had not met the international standards. It said, the “Judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution” and expressed concern over “collusion and biased among prosecutors and judges.”
The HRW also expressed concern over the “failure to take steps to protect defence witnesses”, and “lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” It also claimed that the defence counsels were not aware of the “investigation” and were thus unable to comment on or challenge the evidence which was a serious violation of article-14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Bangladesh was a party.
After hearing the prosecution, Justice ATM Fazle Kabir, chairman of the three-member tribunal, set September 2 for order on the prosecution’s contempt plea on the HRW. Chief Prosecutor Golam Arif Tipu, prosecutors Dr Tureen Afroz, Sultan Mahmud Simon and Barrister Tapos Kanti Boul submitted their arguments. -UNB
