Barrister Tureen Afroz, a prosecutor in former Jamaat-e-Islami chief Ghulam Azam’s case in the war crimes tribunal, has harshly criticised New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) for questioning the trial process in the most sensational war crimes case in Bangladesh.
In a statement on Friday, the human-rights group claimed the trial of Ghulam Azam at International Crimes Tribunal ‘was deeply flawed and did not meet international fair trial standards’.
Its Asia Director Brad Adams said, “We sounded the alarm that the law and trial process were deficient, but the government ignored the warnings.
“The government has got the conviction it wanted, but it has failed to ensure a fair trial that settles once and for all whether Ghulam Azam was guilty,” he claimed.
In his immediate reaction, Law Minister Shafique Ahmed termed the observation as interference in a subjudice internal matter of Bangladesh. He told bdnews24.com that the court could charge the human-rights group with ‘contempt’ taking its statement into cognisance.
Reacting to the HRW statement, Tureen Afroz, a Supreme Court lawyer who teaches law at BRAC University, on Friday told bdnews24.com, “I am shocked to read the HRW article and the outrageous comments made therein regarding Ghulam Azam Case!”
Then she raised three questions pertinent to HRW’s earlier actions and its statement regarding the Ghulam Azam case.
“First of all who is HRW to comment on our internal judicial process and matters? Is it not itself violation of international law? What HRW did when Eichmann Trial or Saddam Hossain Trial were carried out in complete violation of all standards of international law?
“Did it ever protest to safeguard the so called ‘international standard’ then?” she asked.
Her second question was did HRW ever stand to protect the rights of the victims of mass atrocities committed in 1971 since it claimed to be a human-rights organisation. “Why [didn’t it]?”
She then raised a legal issue, where she asked, “More importantly, when the very matter of Ghulam Azam appeal is pending before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, can anyone, let alone HRW, at all comment on the matter?”
“I expected HRW to be more compliant with and respectful to the international standards.”
On July 15, the first war crimes tribunal of Bangladesh sentenced Jamaat guru Ghulam Azam to 90 years in prisonafter finding him guilty of all five types of crime he was charged with – conspiracy, planning, incitement, complicity (abetment) and murder.
However, the judges said taking into account his age and state of his health while passing the verdict, they spared him of death penalty.
The prosecution said the nation got half justice as Azam did not get the death sentence.
It has already appealed against his sentence and called for the maximum penalty. The defence earlier had also appealed seeking acquittal.
Barrister Afroz on Friday replied to the five ‘flaws’ mentioned in the HRW statement titled ‘Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on Flawed Proceedings’.
The first of the ‘flaws’ that the HRW mentioned was that the judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution It alleged collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges; failure to take steps to protect defence witnesses. The fourth ‘flaw’ was that changes were made in the trial court panel and finally, lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Afroz in her reply to the first one said, “Nowhere in the Ghulam Azam judgment did the honourable tribunal mention that they carried out an independent and/or separate investigation on behalf of the prosecution.
“HRW did not also mention actually which part of the investigation was allegedly conducted so. It is a vague allegation only to shamelessly undermine our judicial process. HRW should be cautioned.”
About the second one, she said, “What is the basis of such allegation? They did not provide any proof in support.”
Regarding the third claim of HRW, the ICT prosecutor said, “Again a vague and completely false allegation. Defence ‘witnesses’? There was only one in the Ghulam Azam case.
“Where did HRW find plural witnesses in the case. On top of that the only defence witness adduced by Ghulam Azam was his elder son, who was very much a regular attendant during the trial. If he was under any threat, then how come he attended all the sessions of the trial, including the verdict day?”
She observed that HRW should have done its homework before making such ‘stupid statement’.
Her fourth reply to the ‘changes in the trial court panel’ read: “What are they trying to make out here? Are they suggesting that there can never be a change of panel during the proceedings of any trial?
She then went on to quen what would happen if one of the judges died or fell permanently sick or had to leave the panel for some unavoidable reasons.
“This is ridiculous!” she commented.
The last flaw the HRW mentioned was ‘lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’.
Tureen Afroz continued, “When the appeal is pending before the Appellate Court, can anyone actually comment on the merit of the findings (lack of evidence) of the trial court?”
The prosecutor called into question the HRW’s claim to be an independent trial observer.
“The publication clearly shows that HRW is speaking like one of the parties of the trial. Does HRW have expertise or authority to comment on the quality of evidence in a trial process?
“It is turning out to be too big for its boots.”
Afroz, however, said “I do not allege HRW to be a partisan in this matter” and said “of course they have right to make a choice.”
“However, if HRW does so, it should not label itself to be an ‘independent trial observer’ of the ICT trials or to say, an ‘international organisation’ per se which has its obligation under international law not to interfere in the internal matter of a country,” she said.
Source: bdnews24
