Sunday, May 5, 2013
War Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh : War Crimes Trial in Bangladesh: No Kidnapping & No...
War Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh : War Crimes Trial in Bangladesh: No Kidnapping & No...: There are now some alleged war criminals of Bangladeshi origin in UK. Now imagine what will be the reaction of the Economist if Banglade...
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
War Crimes Trial in Bangladesh: No Kidnapping & No Kidding
There are now some alleged war
criminals of Bangladeshi origin in UK.
Now imagine what will be the reaction of the Economist if Bangladesh
expresses its “intention” of abducting them from UK
to place them in trial within the framework of International Court of Justice.
I am sure even before Bangladesh
attempts to take on such a mission- the Economist would urge the ‘global” community
to put a blockade on Bangladesh
so that “she comes to her senses” and “comply to the international standards”.
Last month however, in an article
on Bangladesh, the Economist wrote-
“In 1961 Israel
kidnapped Adolf Eichmann from Argentina
and put him on trial for crimes committed 20 years earlier. Eichmann had been
secretary at the Nazis’ Wannsee conference that led to the Holocaust. His trial
in Jerusalem was a
model of meticulous process. The prosecutor was Israel’s
attorney-general; the defence lawyer, a leading German attorney; the
proceedings were broadcast. They were everything the Holocaust was not: open,
subject to evidence and challenge, and legal.” Now why should then there be
a double standard for Bangladesh???
You may (for obvious reasons)
take the article as a propaganda against Bangladesh’s
International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). Economist knows it. So it attempts to
refute it with high-sounding phrases such as, “The Economist has no sympathy for the views of Jamaat or
its backers. But justice does not exist solely for those with a particular
approved outlook.” This statement indicates that the Economist is aware
that the article has indeed demonstrated “sympathy for views of Jamat” (Jamat
is an Islamist terrorist outfit). Economist wants to mask its position by
chanting that “justice does not exist solely for those with a particular
approved outlook.” Don’t forget that the Economist just praised an action taken
by a state for “kidnapping” an accused from another independent state for an alleged
crime “committed 20 years earlier”. Thus the bias of Economist towards Jamat cannot
therefore be hidden. Unfortunately this means Bangladesh cannot dare to take up
any adventurous means to bring back some of the accused now dwelling abroad -
come to think of it so far Bangladesh has not expressed any such intention of
kidnapping as well.
It is not clear why the Economist is
against Bangladesh
while she is merely bringing the accused who are dwelling within her border to
justice? For the Economist it is a question of justice not being served as – “The
government has interfered in the court’s deliberations. Public discussion of
the proceedings has been restricted.” The truth is just the reverse. A quick Google-search
is enough to demonstrate that there is no restriction on public discussion on these
proceedings (it also makes you wonder Why on Earth Economist raised such a
flimsy claim?!?). In fact the media attention is unprecedented over these
proceedings ever since the tribunal initiated its activities. The Economist brings
in the issue of government’s interference as most of the readers are expected
to believe it (Economist assumes that readers are willing to believe that “in a
country such as Bangladesh-
these interferences are normal”). However, please note that this so called
theory of interference is based on accusations brought by paid-defense lawyers
and Jamat for no other reason but to undermine the credibility of the trial. It is true that the role
of the government is not neutral when the interest of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh
is considered. Government’s initiative to organizing the tribunal to bring the
war criminals to justice outrages Jamat! But this in no way raises question
regarding the neutrality of the tribunal. The government has not interfered
with courts’ deliberations- it expressed urgency in getting justice at the earliest.
The national parliament of Bangladesh,
like any other democracy, has framed and updated the law of the tribunal to
make the process “open, subject to evidence and challenge, and legal”.
This law and legal process have agitated Jamat- but for no justifiable cause
these had also saddened Economist. It wrote, “Sadly, most Bangladeshis are
cheering on the tribunal’s flawed proceedings.”
When I wrote “Tribunal
in Bangladesh
sets Justice as the Priority”- I refuted many of the negative propagandas
of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh
and I find that it is valid also for of the Economist. The dark
grammar of sickening violence of jamati brotherhood is an article which shows
whom (a terrorist outfit which is now deploying its killing-squad to spread fear and anarchy in Bangladesh) the Economist is defending and the cost that Bangladesh
is paying in her pursuit for justice. The double standards will have to be abandoned
before justice comes into the focus of the media merchants such as the Economist.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Killing Spree of Jamat Takes New Turn
Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh,
a terrorist outfit, orchestrated a mob attack on ruling Awami League’s
anti-shutdown procession by supporters of the Jamaat-e-Islami and Hifazat-e
Islam on Thursday (11th April
2013) left at least three people dead in Chittagong’s
Fatickchari Upazila. The Islami Chhatra Shibir, Jamaat’s student front, had
called the shutdown for Thursday demanding release of their President Delwar
Hussen. Witnesses said, reports
news media, the procession was attacked near Kazir Haat under Bhujpur Police
Station at around 1:30pm following a
call made on the loudspeakers of a mosque in the area. Three firefighters were
also attacked as they tried to extinguish the fire of the vehicles, and a fire
service vehicle was vandalised by the attackers. When the procession neared
Bhujpur, an announcement was made from the loudspeakers of Kazir Haat’s ‘Boro
Madrassa’ mosque saying criminals were approaching to attack the madrasa, ASP
AFM Nizam Uddin of Hathazari circle said quoting witnesses. Students of the
madrasa and local Jamaat supporters began hurling brickbats at the procession
and attacked them with bamboo sticks and sharp weapons.
Regarding the incident, one of the leading dailies
of Bangladesh reports,
Local Jamaat-Shibir men, including Bhujpur union parishad Chairman Shafiul Alam
Nuri, were involved in Thursday’s attacks on law enforcers and an Awami League
procession in the union, according to primary police investigation. Nuri and 34
others of more than 5,000 accused in the case filed in connection with the
attack were produced before a Chittagong
court yesterday.... “From footage, local sources and witnesses, we have
confirmed that Jamaat-Shibir men, particularly the Bhujpur union parishad
chairman, and its member Taskeer, were involved in the attack,” he said. On
Thursday, alleged Jamaat-Shibir men, joined by several thousand villagers,
attacked an AL motor procession and law enforcers following a rumour that the
marchers had killed a madrasa teacher and were about to attack the Kazirhat
mosque and a Hefajat-run madrasa. Three people were killed and more than 100
people, including 15 policemen, four fire fighters and two border guards, were
injured in the attack. The attackers also set fire to around 100 vehicles,
including 50 motorbikes and a fire-fighting vehicle.
Another report of Daily Star, informs, “Grassroots-level activists of Jamaat-e-Islami are preparing to unleash again vicious protests in the country sensing the international crimes tribunals may convict their former chief Ghulam Azam and leader Kamaruzzaman of war crimes charges. The two tribunals are set to deliver any day the verdicts in the cases against the two top figures of the party. Some district-level senior Jamaat leaders yesterday told The Daily Star that they would enforce hartals and other sorts of protests from the moment the tribunals deliver verdicts convicting the Jamaat leaders.”
The reports reveal few alarming
aspects of violence and terror used by Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh
in recent months. It is true that Jamat-e-Islami is using medieval forms of violence
(such as cutting of veins and limbs or slaughtering its opponents and religious
minorities) from its very emergence. However, in recent months, it is using
violence within a targeted approach of spreading insecurity at large to
dismantle the on going trails of its leaders for crimes against humanity. In
this regard, after attacking the uniform and legal institutions, it targeted
public infrastructures and utilities so that the government is pressed to
negotiate with Jamat. Given this sequential patterns of these waves of
violence, it was only a matter of that Jamat had targeted political activists
and leading political figures (such as Faruk Iqbal Bipul, Vice-President of Youth League, killed by Jamat on 11th April) . So what’s new?
-
First; jamat is playing with the emotion of general
Muslims to create mob attacks by spreading rumors of attacks either on Islam or
on Islamic values or on Islamic institutions etc. by alleged groups of “atheists”.
It is important to note that as Jamat has no respect for the Islamic values of
peace, harmony and tolerance- it has no limitation in fabricating and thereby
misleading the mass to meet their violent goals.
-
Second, Jamat has masked its organization within a fake
identity of an Islamic-social-movement called the Custodian of Islam
(Hifazat-e-Islam). They are using this platform to portray as if those who are
not politically linked with Jamat are supporting its cause as it would “protect”
Islam. This ploy is revealed through the conversations between Jamat leader and
leader of Hifazat-e-Islam telecasted in national news media. In this scandalous
recording Jamat was found to instruct the Hifazat leadership.
-
Third, Jamat is not merely carrying out violent actions
against political oppositions, at this stage; it is using a strategy of raising
death-toll at any cost. This means, along with targeted attacks and killings by
its killing-squad- it is pushing misled crowd to attack armed law enforcing
authorities to an extent that it leads to causalities at both ends.
-
Last, Jamat is documenting all the killings on visual
media and web-casting these to meet two objectives- primarily to spread fear
and then to inspire all of its supporters to take on similar path of violence.
During the latest attack in Chittagong,
when the chased activists took refuge inside a school, Jamat’s killing-squad
surrounded them and brutally jumped on them in medieval fashion. At the same
time, they were making video clips on modern gadgets which could later found on
YouTube. If these footage are viewed by anyone s/he will not have any
hesitation in supporting the position of Bangladesh,
in its move to ban this terrorist outfit.
Soon another verdict will be
announced by the International Crime Tribunal of Bangladesh. This time it is
Golam Azam- a man facing a strong probability of receiving the highest
punishment for being the mastermind behind the paramilitary force accused of
committing genocide during 1971. It is important to note that Golam Azam has been
always treated as a war criminal of the Bangladesh
liberation war by the general mass because there is no shortage of evidence
against him. Jamat-e-Islam did not consider this negative public image of the
man as a liability. In fact, Jamat did not choose to remove any of the
self-proclaimed or socially branded war criminals from its rank during the last
forty odd years. As for example Golam Azam was the Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh
until 2000.
Verdict of Golam Azam is critical
as Jamat is certainly looking at this as an opportunity of accelerating its violent
campaign. As it is a fascist and undemocratic outfit, Jamat cannot be
negotiated through dialogue. It is high time to ban this undemocratic instrument
of atrocity. Only then can there be a fair chance of practicing Islam in Bangladesh
by real Muslims for whom Islam stands for peace, harmony and tolerance.
Monday, April 1, 2013
The Dark-Grammar of Sickening Violence of Jamati-Brotherhood
The Jamat-e-Islami
Bangladesh is carrying out atrocities across Bangladesh as its supporters are
attempting to foil the on going trial of war criminals. The news media is
flooded with images of burnt electric-sub-station and fallen policemen. It is
also targeting the religious minorities, ransacking temples and attacking households
of Hindu citizens. These rise two questions; firstly, why they are wedging a
war against few selected targets and secondly, what to expect next?
The answer to the first
question brings us to a strategy tried out globally by an Islamist outfit
called Muslim Brotherhood. This organization has been following a very
specific approach in applying terror. The same footsteps are followed in
Bangladesh by Jamat-e-Islami. This Islamist terrorist organization lines up its
targets as follows:
First target the “uniform”.
They realize that “uniforms” specifically those associated with the law
enforcing agencies are not particularly popular among the mass. People are
aware of misconducts and malpractices of the law enforcing agencies (in
Bangladesh the Police and Rapid Action Force etc.). This largely makes the “uniform”
a hated symbol. The Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh as an obedient disciple of the
Brotherhood, began its violent campaign by attacking the police. Recently, when
a leader of the Chatrashibir (the student wing of Jamat and an organization
recently listed as terrorist) was arrested by police, the supporters of
Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh deliberately attacked the police and wounded many of
these men in uniforms. One of them lost both of his arms down the elbow as a
result of explosions orchestrated by Jamat. They continue to attack the police
keeping two lessons of global terrorist movements in mind:
·
Jamat knows that people are
disassociated with the law enforcing agencies, therefore people will not take
an active role in protecting the police from the attacks of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh-
for the same reason; nor would they actively protest against such acts of
violence. However, every such attack would spread insecurity among the general
mass.
·
Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh knows that
rural communities may not be too meticulous in practicing Islam, but are very
affectionate towards protection its dignity. Based on this premise, to agitates
rural communities it spreads rumors (such as Islam is under attack by the
government and the International War Crime Tribunals) to instigate violent mob
attacks. As the police is armed and has the constitutional mandate to protect
itself against fatal attacks- Jamat-e-Islami knows that the men in uniforms
will certainly fire lethal shots once they are fatally cornered. Jamat knows
that misinformed community people would be the prime causalities of such acts
of self-defense by the police. This would further alienate the police from the
mass and spread insecurity along with distrust towards the state.
Second, target the
institutions. Jamat-e-Isalmi Bangladesh is
continually undermining the authority of the state regarding the trial of the
war criminals. In this regard, Jamat preaches the “supremacy of holy scriptures”
to portray an impression that the laws and constitutional provisions of the
nation-state of Bangladesh come in conflict with Islamic scriptures. This is an
attempt of undermining the laws of the land and thereby making the war crime tribunal
irrelevant. Jamat has attacked the vehicle of the law Minister to demonstrate
that it targets the state- specifically the institutions that works to deliver
justice based on secular legislations. Once again, this is the second strata of
violent campaign followed by the global movement of Muslim Brotherhood. Through
these negative and violent campaigns make legitimacy of the state and its sovereignty
questionable – this in turn makes the mass uncertain regarding whom to pledge loyalty.
Third, target the
infrastructure. This is one of the most sadistic strategies
adopted by the Brotherhood. Based on this, Jamat-e-Islam Bangladesh had already
attacked bridges and electric plants (sub-stations) to rumble. The terrorist
psyche of Brotherhood preaches that once the infrastructures are damaged, people’s
access to essential public utilities is cut-off. It recognizes that in the
short-run this makes the campaigners (i.e. Jamat) unpopular as expensive public
resources are wasted and usual standard of living is hampered. However, Jamat
as an adherent follower of Brotherhood, commits to bring down public infrastructures
as it knows that, after a while, people start blaming the government for not
being effective in protecting its property and not being prompt in re-establishing
the broken service delivery mechanisms. People thereby are taken in as hostages
– once again this spreads insecurity and alienates the citizen from the state.
Fourth,
attack the religious minorities. This is a cowardice and
covert approach mastered by all the outfits of Muslim Brotherhood to divide citizens
and to engage neighbors in self-defeating conflicts. In Bangladesh, Jamat has
attacked the Hindu-temples and Buddhist-pagodas. It has killed, raped and
brutalized the religious minorities in the strongholds. Jamat has attacked the
religious minorities, like all other Brotherhood outlets, to mobilize emotional
supports of the Muslims just because Jamat is an organization of “Muslims”. It
attacks the Hindus and Buddhists to mislead the majority by implying that the
minorities are attacked because they have masterminded the war-crime-trial just
to harass few “Good Muslims”.
Last,
attack the politicians. Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorist
strategy keeps this as the last resort. They use the above four forms of
violence mainly to negotiate with the politicians in favor of their mission. Important
to note that a successful negotiation in favor of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh does
not only mean that the trail of the war criminals is discarded; it also means
that the democratically elected government is no longer in a position to govern
the state of Bangladesh. Only when negotiation fails or does not move in their
favor- the terrorist cult called Muslim Brotherhood choose to attack the
politicians. Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh has now reached this stage. This is the
most critical junction. Once the politicians are attacked, the Brotherhood
pushes the agenda of “failed state” to dismantle the democratic system of
governance. Thus the outcome of negotiation and the attack on politicians is the
same- defeat of democracy at the face of fascistic violence!
Conclusion:
The dark grammar of
sickening violence followed by Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh must be unmasked so
that we can clearly differentiate Jamat from democratic political forces. The
path taken by Jamat clearly indicates that, Bangladesh has reached the final
stage of violent onslaught of Bangladeshi branch Muslim Brotherhood when the politicians will be targeted if negotiation does not favor Jamat. An attack on politicians in Bangladesh would also involve attacks on the youthful-peaceful demonstrators of Shahbag Square along with attacks on the religious minorities, women and human rights activists and cultural activists across the country. Negotiation with Jamat will also lead to the same results as it would favor the undemocratic demands of a terrorist outfit that does not acknowledge the very sovereignty of the state of People's Republic of Bangladesh. This further
implies that without a comprehensive legal, economic, social and political ban on the
organization (on the ground of terrorism and ethnic clinging) - the future of
democracy and human rights in Bangladesh cannot be ensured.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Why it took so long to bring the War Criminals to Justice in Bangladesh?
Through
the election of 2008, the Mohajote (a national alliance of liberal and left
political parties) formed the government in Bangladesh. In its election
manifesto Mohajote had explicitly flagged the program of bringing the war
criminals of 1971 to justice. In the election Mohajote came into power with
more than two-third majority. This can be taken as a clear democratic mandate
of the government to pursue justice for the crimes committed by individuals (e.g. leaders of Jamat-e-Islam and auxiliary
paramilitary forces- Rajakar and Al-Badar forces) and organization (presently known as Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh) during the 1971’s
War of Independence. Presently by setting up International Tribunal for trying
Crimes against Humanity committed during the War of Independence- the
government is implementing its election-commitments. Why Bangladesh had to wait
so long a time to start this process? A question that requires our attention to
understand the context of the tribunal and the challenges it faces.
One of the spoke persons in Bangladesh news
media, Syeed
Ahamed, has provided a detailed account of how Bangladesh’s attempt to
bring those who had committed crimes against humanity during 1971 has being a
trying game. He informed that-
Some 90 to
95 thousand Pakistani prisoners of war (POWs) were imprisoned after they
surrendered to the Joint Command of Bangladesh-India. Bangladesh on 29 March
1972 declared its intention to try some 1,100 Pakistani war criminals—
including A.A.K. Niazi and Rao Forman Ali Khan[1].
Meanwhile,
some 32,000 local collaborators were arrested on various charges by September
1972. The government initially prepared for 20,000 prosecutions, while lack of
evidence hindered the trial of the rest[2].
The
Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972 was announced to try
the local war criminals. The constitution of Bangladesh was also amended to
include Article 47 (3) in order to fasten the trial of members “of any armed or
defence or auxiliary forces” for genocide, crimes against humanity or war
crimes[3].
The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 was announced on 20 July 1973
mainly to try the Pakistani war criminals[4].
The
government also announced a two-tier trial process where national and
international jurists would be appointed to try some high profile war
criminals, while an all-Bangladeshi jurist panel would try the rest[5].
To
begin the trial of Pakistanis, Bangladesh requested India to hand over the
accused POWs. India agreed to hand over only those Pakistani POWs against whom
Bangladesh could provide evidences of atrocities (prima facie
cases)[8].
Initially, Bangladesh provided evidence against 150 POWs, and India agreed to
hand them over to Bangladesh[9].
Eventually, specific charges were brought against a total of 195 Pakistani war
criminals.
To
prevent Bangladesh from trying the Pakistani war criminals, Pakistan government
took a series of atrocious actions including: preventing the 350-400,000
entrapped Bangladeshis from leaving Pakistan and making them hostages; keeping
the Bangali officers in “concentration camps”;[11]
imprisoning thousands of Bangalis
without charges[12] ; and announcing thousand rupee
reward for capturing every Bangali who were trying to escape from Pakistan. On
August 10, 1972, Bhutto threatened to use China’s veto power to stop Bangladesh
from getting the UN membership if Pakistani soldiers are tried[13], and China actually vetoed against
Bangladesh’s membership at the UN on August 25, 1972[14]. On May 27, 1973, Bhutto announced
that, if Bangladesh tried the Pakistani soldiers, Pakistan would also try the
Bangalis in similar tribunal for passing information during the war[15].
Pakistan arrested 203 senior Bengali officers for this threatened trial[16].
In 1973, Pakistan proposed that they would establish a judicial tribunal to try
these 195 Pakistani officers if Bangladesh abstained from trying those POWs in
Dhaka[18].
They also kept more than 200 Bangalis as hostages until the 195 Pakistanis were
released.
It appears
that Bangabandhu had to abstain from trying those 195 Pakistanis in Dhaka in a
bid to rescue Bangladeshi citizens from Pakistan, to get UN membership (which
was vetoed by China on Pakistan’s behalf), and most importantly to ease the
path to foreign aid and the Middle East labour market.
On 22
February 1974 Pakistan recognised Bangladesh[20] and on 24 March it released the remaining 206 Bangladeshi
hostages from their captivity[21]. Finally, a tripartite agreement was signed between
Bangladesh-India-Pakistan on 10 April 1974 under which those 195 Pakistani war
criminals were repatriated.
At the
same time, the tepid pace of trial given lack of resources meant thousands of
potentially innocent people were languishing in prison. To address these
issues, Bangabandhu announced a conditional general amnesty on 30 November 1973
for everyone except for those who were involved in rape, arson, looting or
murder. Hence, many such collaborators got away through general amnesty with a
condition that if their role in murder, rape or arson is found, they will be
brought to justice again.
After the
15 August (1975) tragedy, the military regime repealed the Collaborator Act
altogether and the rest of the collaborators were eventually released…..
Collaborator Act was repealed by the military regime of which Ziaur Rahman (the
founder of Bangladesh Nationalist Party- BNP) was the key member, his
government (or any subsequent one) did not repeal Article 47(3) and the
International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 which provides the basis of any
trial of those who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in 1971.
Conclusion:
1.
- Bangladesh, from its very inception, has attempted to bring both the Pakistani and Bangladeshi war criminals (accused of committing crimes against humanity) to justice.
- Bangladesh had to release the 195 Pakistani POWs to repatriate 350-400,000 entrapped Bangladeshis from Pakistan and also as a part of its process to win international support in its pledge for UN membership. Moreover, In 1973, Pakistan proposed that they would establish a judicial tribunal to try these 195 Pakistani officers if Bangladesh abstained from trying those POWs in Dhaka.
- In November 1973, at the face of severe resource and administrative constraints along with urgency in ensuring that innocents are not kept detained over a long period without trial- Bangladesh government had to provide amnesty to local war collaborators except for those who were involved in rape, arson, looting or murder. At the same time, there was a provision that the amnesty will be revoked if their role in murder, rape or arson is found, they would be brought to justice again.
- On ceasing power through military coup and assassination of the First Prime Minister and leader of the War of Independence on 15 August (1975) - Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Major Ziaur Rahman (the founder of BNP) dismantled all legal provisions of trying war crimes of 1971. Moreover, he released all local “collaborators” who were imprisoned for committing crimes against humanity.
- The present government came into power (through the National Election of 2008) with more than two-third majority and therefore holds a clear mandate to pursue the trial of the war criminals (individuals and organizations).
A large proportion of the main
architects of 1971’s War Crimes are leaders of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh. The
main opposition party (i.e. Bangladesh Nationalist Party- BNP) of
the country is also the prime force that had previously dismantled the legal
tools to try war criminals. The same party had also released the imprisoned
local collaborators (accused of war crimes) and later had reinstated them into
politics. Therefore, BNP is opposing Bangladesh’s International Tribunal
process along with Jamat-e-Islam Bangladesh.
Tribunal in Bangladesh sets Justice as the Priority
To refute an allegation
against Bangladesh ICT on the ground of not clearing definition of crime we
will take two paths. Firstly, we will explore what the laws provide. Secondly,
we will discuss the case of Simone Gbagbo’s indictment by ICC and explore how
looking beyond “military hierarchies” was not dictated by any prior ruling on
scope and definition of the crime; rather was set as an example through action.
One can find the
response of the Tribunal-1 to be adequate regarding the argument of the defense
lawyers urging the Tribunal to make ruling on definition of Crimes against
Humanity. The Tribunal informed, “In
regard to definition of crimes mentioned in the Act and elements thereof, we
are of the view that the definitions are quite clear and complete without any
ambiguity. The Act was drafted in an era when the crimes enumerated therein
were fairly known and understood to the world, and were very much part of
customary international law. Therefore, we see no reason why should we be
trying to find gaps which are not there or try to borrow definitions from
fairly recent international tribunals where the International Crimes Tribunal
of Bangladesh do not have any such obligation to do so. However, the Tribunal
may take into account jurisprudential developments from other jurisdictions
should it feel so required in the interest of justice. In regard to thresholds
of the crimes against humanity and its nexus to armed conflict and the
requirement of knowledge, as stated above, we are of the view that the crimes
under the Act are adequate in all aspects and therefore it is not necessary to
visit other recent notions developed by the statutes of various international
tribunals.”
At the same time, the
defense attempted to set a ruling on- “what conducts constituted crimes against
humanity in 1971?” based on the conditionality set by the Extraordinary Chamber
of the Courts of Cambodia. However, the context and contents are different in
every country and the laws need not be explicit in recognizing these aspects
(as the international legal norms are quite adequate). An example can be found
with regard to changing context and legal application of indictment with regard
to war crimes as charged against the wife
of the former president of Cote D'Ivoire. The
international Criminal Court (ICC) unsealed the indictment of Simone Gbagbo,
wife of the former president of Cote D'Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo. Laurent Gbagbo was
already in detention in The Hague, awaiting trial at the ICC, charged with
orchestrating a campaign of violence in an effort to remain in power after
losing an election. The ICC indicted Simone Gbagbo for her involvement in that
post-election violence, asserting that she was personally responsible for
crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, and persecution.
Significantly, this was the first indictment of a woman by the ICC, perhaps
signaling a change in the role of gender in international justice. Yet, the
case's most important legacy may instead be the ICC's new willingness to look beyond formal governmental and military
hierarchies in identifying those most responsible for serious international
crimes. This aspect of looking beyond “military hierarchies” was not
included in the conditionality set by the Extraordinary Chamber of the Courts
of Cambodia.
Conclusion:
- The Tribunal has adequate flexibility to draw upon jurisprudential developments from other jurisdictions should it feels so required in the interest of justice.
- The Tribunal makes it clear that legal provisions are adequate. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that this legal tool had once already being applied in Bangladesh to identify crimes against humanity.
- Lastly, the changing context of war crimes does not always require definitional clarity as prerequisite, because the International Tribunals set new standards through adopting to the changing context. The International Tribunal on Crimes against Humanity in Bangladesh is also similar in this respect.
- The demand of defense lawyers of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh in ICT regarding following the Cambodia experience as a framework- is an example of undermining the process set on motion to buy time and add to confusion to popular conceptions. The ICT on the contrary can choose to be further innovative. In this regard prevailing international norms do not prescribe prior rulings to dictate actions rather to set examples through novel actions (as for example in case of Simone Gbagbo the incident of looking beyond “military hierarchies” was not dictated by any prior ruling on scope and definition of the crime).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)