A paper titled
“Bangladesh: the International Crimes Tribunal” (Standard Note: SN06318 Last
updated: 3 May 2012); Authors: Jon Lunn and Arabella Thorp (Section
International Affairs and Defence Section) of House of Commons
Library lists four key sources to critic the ICT of Bangladesh.
Now let us check-out one of the keen criticsto
Bangladesh’s ICT mentioned by the paper- John Cammegh.He is a barrister in
chambers at 9 Bedford Row, London. John Cammegh is one of the three British
lawyers whose help was sought by local defense team of Jamat-e-Islami
Bangladesh on behalf of its leaders accused of committing crimes against
humanity. John Cammegh is
retained on behalf of DelwarHossainSayedee, one of the top ranking leaders
of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh. He had previously acted as lead defense counsel
for Augustine Gbao, overall security commander of the RUF rebel army, at his
war crimes trial at the Special Court of Sierra Leone from 2004 to 2006.
According to the Hague
Justice Portal, “Augustine Gbao was
indicted on 16 April 2003. He is charged with 18 counts of crimes against
humanity and war crimes. He was arrested and transferred to the Special Court
for Sierra Leone (SCSL) in March 2003. On 25 February 2009, the SCSL
convicted Augustine Gbao of 14 of the 18 counts against him, and on 8 April
2009 the Court sentenced Gbao to 25 years' imprisonment. On 26 October 2009,
the Appeals Chamber delivered its judgment, upholding the conviction of Gbao
and his 25-year sentence. The Chamber did however overturn his conviction concerning
collective punishments and found that he was not responsible for one of the two
attacks against UN peacekeepers. On 31 October 2009, Gbao, along with seven
other persons convicted by the SCSL, was transferred to Rwanda to serve his
sentence.”He has written an article in the New York Times, which was quoted
as a source in a publication by the House of Commons in UK. It is important to
note that by no means his opinions can be considered “unbiased” as he is paid
to represent one of the defendants. Let’s not forget that on his recent CV it
is written, “Through
his current involvement with the Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal John’s practice
has expanded into the lobbying/diplomatic field,developing a range of
high-level political contacts in the UK, US and Europe, and institutions such
as the International Centre for Transitional Justice and Human Rights Watch.”
It’s no wonder that in recent days Human Rights Watch is showing greater
concern over alleged mistrial of the Jamat leaders.
Another
UK based legal expert Tobey Cadman is also on the panel of defense lawyer put
together by Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh.
He is another of the critics registered in the publication of the House of
Commons’ paper. According to Saudi Gazette, last year (Tuesday, October 23,
2012) the “eminent British lawyer” Toby Cadman, who is representing five
Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leaders accused of committing international crimes
during the country’s 1971 liberation war, feared that many of the accused would
be convicted by the symbolic date of Dec. 16 this year and would be executed by
March 25, 2013. Now although, this prediction has not come true, his intentions
of undermining the ICT Bangladesh have however clearly being demonstrated
through it. He strongly (and wrongly) concluded, “If
you listen to the statements made by members of the prosecution team, it is
evident that the government has the clear intention to convict and ultimately
execute at least three — Prof. GhulamAzam, MaulanaDelwarHossainSayeedi and
SalahuddinQuaderChowdhury- on or by Dec. 16 of this year”.
The
same publication of the House of Commons, had listed a blog by David Bergman as
another of its sources for critics on ICT Bangladesh. During his career as a
journalist in UK he was one of the makers and the chief researcher of a
documentary on the war criminals of 1971 who were living in UK. Channel 4 aired
it on 3 May 1995—recording eye witness accounts of Mueen-Uddin’s involvement in
disappearances of journalists and other intellectuals in December 1971. It (the
documentary War Crimes File) created much sensation in London after it was
showed in Channel Four of BBC. Elaborating the target of making the
documentary, David
Bergman saidthe conscious world, including
the European community raised their voice against the mass killings and war
crimes committed in former Yugoslavia’s Bosnia. A strong demand was raised that
the war criminals have to be punished. At that time he came to know that three
war criminals of Bangladesh are residing in London in disguise. They also
became leaders of the Bengalee community there. They are involved with various
fundamentalist and communal groups. They made the film to unmask the war
criminals and bring them to book.If
we consider this past involvement of David Bergman as a credential – let’s see
how he is using it.
One
of his basic and primary arguments in undermining the ICT in Bangladesh has
been regarding the difficulties in authentic evidence gathering. Once we
analyze how he uses his experience and affiliation with War Crimes of 1971 to
mislead unsuspecting readers- we will be astounded! He wrote, “As someone who has spent
some time investigating war crimes in Bangladesh (at that time around 25 years
old evidence) I know first hand that whilst there is collective memory and
belief about who is involved in war crimes, it is tough to find direct
eye-witness or documentary evidence. Even when you find an eyewitness, there is
always the question of whether you can find sufficient corroboration. And then
of course there are the inconsistencies that one so often finds between
witnesses, when the alleged offence took place so long ago.”Although, in case
of Bangladesh trials, we do see a large number of eye witnesses, for the sake
of argument let us consider what the international standard requires in a case
when eye witnesses’ accounts are questionable. One such
view of an expert can be found in a dissertation (section 3.4.1. of U.N. Human
Rights Fact-Finding Establishing Individual Criminal Responsibility? - Harvard Law School, 2011) by Lara Talsma,
LL.M..She
wrote, “According to Knoops
the notion exists that “witness testimony will contribute to fact finding and
truth.”An important aspect of witness testimony is therefore the credibility
and reliability of the witness. The International Criminal Tribunals are
quite lenient when it comes to accepting that a witness is credible. For
example, when a court finds inconsistencies in the testimony, that testimony
can still be taken into account. This is also due to the fact that the witness
testimony will be assessed in light of all the evidence of the case. As a
result, the Court can decide that it will use only parts of the testimony.” Thus David Bergman’s approach to Bangladesh’s
ICT is quite rigid and presumptuous while through twitter and blog his opinions
are well circulated.He is found to use his legal background to mislead general
readers regarding basic standards on ICTs. His blogs present trial notes which
indiscriminately jumblehis opinions and facts. Thus theseshould be carefully
separated before one attempts to use the posts. The opinions should not be
rejected for being critical but these cannot be considered “professional
journalism” as these reflect his framework of presumptions on international
standards without citing any form of documented rationale.
Lastly, the paper mentions of “justice in
conflict” blog. The concerned article concludes, “And, in fact, if guilty convictions are what
the government is looking for – and it seems that there is already plenty of
evidence against some of the defendants (they have after all been collecting
over for almost two decades now) – it seems short-sighted for the government to
rig a trial which is likely to go its way anyway.”I have cited this part as the conclusion rightfully undermines the
rationale of any effective participation of the government to “rig” the process.
Apparently the article has been also influenced by the critical feedbacks of
the first two sources (e.g. “Allegations
of bias have been made against the chief judge by defense lawyers”). This reflects that critics
of Bangladesh’s ICT have formed a circle that reinforces each other’s views and
voices.
Let us therefore not be influence by professional
lawyers on the payroll of the accused and misleading comments of individual
journalists regarding a practical process initiated by Bangladesh to bring
those to justicewho had committed crimes against humanity, during its War of
Independence.
