The Daily Star

Your Right To Know
Friday, October 31, 2014

Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Front Page

Verdict answers some questions

In its maiden verdict, the International Crimes Tribunal-2 gave its views on some debates and arguments over the issue of trying war criminals of 1971 more than four decades after the country's independence.

Many of these arguments were presented by the defence in the tribunals and have also been used in the political arena to oppose the ongoing trial of war criminals. And one of those involves the 40-year delay in holding the trial.

Abdus Shukur Khan, the state-appointed defence counsel for Abul Kalam Azad, raised similar questions during his closing arguments at the tribunal.

Shukur argued that the 40-year delay in prosecuting Azad was not “sufficiently explained” and such delay “created doubt about the fairness of the trial.”

In this regard, the tribunal said the question of time should not apply to the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity, as there is no time limit for holding criminal cases.

The tribunal said Nazi war criminals of World War-II are still being tried, and trial of genocides committed during the 1973 Chilean revolution and the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia in the 1970s is also going on.

Besides, neither the Genocide Convention of 1948 nor the Geneva Conventions of 1949 contains any provision on statutory limitations to trying war crimes and crimes against humanity, it said.

“In absence of any statutory limitation, as a procedural bar, only the delay itself does not preclude prosecutorial action to adjudicate the culpability of the perpetrator of core international crimes,” it said.

The crimes against humanity and genocide, the gravest crimes of all, “never get old”, said the tribunal.

“In Bangladesh, the efforts initiated under a lawful legislation to prosecute, try and punish the perpetrators of crimes committed in violation of customary international law are an indicia of valid and courageous endeavour to come out from the culture of impunity,” it said.

Shukur argued that the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 was enacted to try 195 listed Pakistani war criminals and they were pardoned through a tripartite agreement in 1974.

“Without prosecuting those listed war criminals, the accused [Azad] cannot be brought to justice,” said the defence counsel.

The tribunal said such agreement was an executive act and it cannot create any obstacle to trying a member of “auxiliary force” or “an individual” or a member of “a group of individuals.”

“Such tripartite agreement, which is mere an executive act, cannot liberate the state from the responsibility to bring the perpetrators of atrocities and system crimes into the process of justice,” it said.

The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act is meant to try not only the “armed forces” but also the perpetrators who belonged to “auxiliary forces”, or “an individual” or a member of “a group of individuals”.

“Nowhere the act says that without prosecuting the armed forces [of Pakistan] the person or persons having any other capacity specified in section 3(1) of the Act cannot be prosecuted,” said the tribunal.

Shukur then claimed that the phrases “individual” and “group of individuals” have been “purposely” incorporated in the Act in 2009 through an amendment.

“Such amendment does not have retrospective effect, and Azad cannot be brought to the jurisdiction of the tribunal as an 'individual',” he said.

The tribunal said the amendment was brought merely for extending the tribunal's jurisdiction to bring the perpetrator of the criminal activities under the capacity of an “individual” or a member of “a group of individuals”.

“It is thus validly understood that the rationale behind this amendment is to avoid letting those who committed the most heinous atrocities go unpunished. This is the intent of bringing such amendment,” it added.

Shukur argued that Azad could have been prosecuted and tried under the Collaborators Order, 1972, if he had actually committed the crimes in 1971.

Noor Hossain, the investigation officer of the case, had earlier testified that a case was filed against Azad under the Collaborators Order after the Liberation War.

Referring to Noor's testimony, Shukur argued that if Azad was actually implicated under the Collaborators Order, it would be a “double jeopardy” to prosecute him again.

On Shukur's arguments, the tribunal said there is no proof that Azad was tried under the Collaborators Order 1972.

It said the offences punishable under the Penal Code were scheduled in the Collaborators Order 1972 while the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act was enacted to try crimes against humanity, genocide and other similar crimes.

“There is no scope to characterise the offences underlying in the Collaborators Order, 1972 to be the same offences as specified in ICT-Act,” the tribunal said.

Share on



 





Not exactly, you (PM) have actually taken the easiest or shortest path to make your political agenda. We need you to catch the real big fish which will go through all the procedural execution and make us really believe that job is done finally. This one as a start is just an example of a good one and it gave the ICT the confidence of executing a particular case was comparatively easier as the accused absconded. I hope the PM means business and we need to see that at least. This one will not do.

: OpeeMonir

40 years or 100 years delayed does not mean war criminals are innocent. All criminals deserve this verdict and who oppose ICT they either the beneficiary of killing of Bangabadhu or they are anti liberation elements. Nation is waiting to implement this verdict without further delay.

: Harun Rashid

Comments

  • naabaj
    Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:56 AM GMT+06:00 (93 weeks ago)

    We do not know when Mr Shukur was born and where. If it is before 1971 and young enough on Bangladesh soil during 1971 Liberation War, we all know what happened to this trial process. We have the history. In brief, killing of Bangabandhu in 1975 by some disgruntled Army personnel who were repatriated from Pakistan safely and the political change thereafter, the role of President Zia and his BNP and then President Ershad who abolished collaboration act and rehabilitated these war criminals are some of the reasons behind this delay. These are based on evidence and reasoned well. Mr Shukur and other defence counsels and those who do not know the real history should read numerous unbiased resources published to date and not resist unreasonably simply by faith. As a human being, we should not surrender our power of reasons to faith. We hail this scientific verdict of justice and are waiting to see other traitors' trial eagerly.

  • Selma
    Tuesday, January 22, 2013 01:41 AM GMT+06:00 (93 weeks ago)

    Why is DS calling this International Court when no International body has given it a thumb up and is it not obvious that it is a Kangaroo court like the ones that Stalin, Hitler and Saddam Hussein used to kill off their opponents! People should read what the Economist is saying about these trials and the process which are highly questionable.

  • Barkat
    Tuesday, January 22, 2013 03:01 AM GMT+06:00 (93 weeks ago)

    If the Tribunal is International why does it not prosecute Pakistan's armed forces and political heads who were more responsible in war crime? But AL chose just to prosecute only those who belong to a particular political ideology. In past four years, AL government neither demanded justice from Pakistan nor did it do any attempt for it. On the contrary, the Pakistan FM was warmly welcomed by Hasina and lunched by Dipu Moni. So is this trial more to do with domestic politics or real justice. Only history will prove it.

  • Md Shahjahan
    Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:04 AM GMT+06:00 (92 weeks ago)

    We desire a clear-cut observation from War Crimes Tribunal who was responsible for delay of trial of war criminals.


 

 


advertisement

 


The Daily Star

© thedailystar.net, 1991-2014. All Rights Reserved