Both the prosecution and the defence have expressed dissatisfaction over the verdict in Ghulam Azam’s case, and said they would appeal against the verdict.
Prosecution counsel Tureen Afroz, who was in tears following the verdict, said she was frustrated. The court found Ghulam Azam guilty beyond reasonable doubt but it moved away from giving him maximum punishment just considering his age, she added.
Asked about the verdict, Tureen said, “We will definitely appeal against them verdict. We are not trying cases of murder, killing or loot in this tribunal, we are trying cases of crimes against humanity. In this case, if Section-20 of the International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973, is applied, then we will see it stipulates that only gravity of the crime should be considered in giving punishment. There is no provision for considering individual circumstances or personal situation in Section-20, ”she said.
“If age is taken into consideration in deciding punishment for crimes against humanity committed by the person on whose direction and planning the genocide of three million martyrs was committed in Bangladesh, then it appears the Bangalees have committed a crime conducting the trial after long 42 years. ” said Tureen, also law affairs secretary of Ekattorer Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee.Chief defence counsel Abdur Razzaq said they are aggrieved at the verdict.
Addressing a press conference at his Dhanmondi residence in the capital yesterday, he said, “It is undoubtedly true that Professor Ghulam Azam politically believed in the unity of Pakistan. He worked for the independence and sovereignty of Pakistan.”
Supporting Pakistan is different from committing crimes against humanity, he added.
Ghulam Azam’s son Abdullahil Aman Azmi said the 90-year jail term for his father is “unjust”. The charges against him are “false, fabricated and baseless.”
“The judgment shocked us. But we are not surprised at this,” he told journalists.
Azmi, a former brigadier general of Bangladesh army, said they would appeal with the higher court challenging the judgment.“
Source: The Daily Star