US Ambassador-at-Large Stephen J Rapp yesterday said no political party should be tried for crime against humanity, and the focus should be given on individuals who committed the crime.
“Do not take the step of moving forward to use the criminal process to prosecute a political party or a large group,” he said at a press conference at the American Center in the capital.
He arrived in the city on Sunday, his fifth visit since 2011, and met foreign and law ministers, prosecutors, defence attorneys and members of civil society.
Without mentioning the name of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, Rapp said the crimes in 1971 were committed by individuals and not everybody in a political party.
He was of the view that it is essential to resort to the process of reconciliation in the society as convicting a political party would not help the people.
“That is not something that will help peace and reconciliation. What helps peace and reconciliation is focusing on individuals that made the decisions, and then separating those individuals from parties and groups,” he said.
Citing Nuremberg trial, he said: “The Nuremberg Tribunal … they did not convict any organisation, but they found Nazi leadership was criminal, not the Nazi party.
“Even in that precedent, it is not appropriate to convict the political party,” he said.
Several verdicts in Bangladesh termed Jamaat as a criminal organisation for its role in 1971.
The Nazi Party was also termed criminal organisation by the Nuremberg Tribunal and was banned by the Allied Force led by the US.
Prosecution of Quader Molla
Washington was not happy over the execution of Abdul Quader Mollah last year.
Rapp said the US expressed its concern as it found the process procedurally defective.
“We did raise issues, and there was communication at the highest level of the US government that raised concern about that case and about the fact that the death sentence had only been imposed on appeal, and that death sentence had not been reviewed by another court, which in my view is a requirement of the international human rights law,” he said.
He said the death penalty was not awarded by the first court, rather a law had been passed after the trial, and second court gave him death penalty.
Position on death penalty
Rapp said both Bangladesh and the US have death penalty, but it should be given in the most exceptional cases.
“The expectation under international human rights law is that the death penalty is given only in the most exceptional cases where the highest level of due processes is being observed, where the evidence is basically solid and undisputed,” he said.
The whole process needs to be based on evidence and facts, and should maintain highest standard, he said.
However, he said there were some concerns by the people that if there was no death sentence, the convicted might be released.
US policy on the ICT
Rapp said the US policy is to support cases on crime against humanity at the national level.
The country itself can judge these individuals, investigate cases and decide about the trials without fear and favour and hold the guilty party responsible, he said.
He made several recommendations on the rules of procedures and practices, and some of them were accepted and some rejected.
“The challenge of this process was that we were dealing with a statute that was written more than 40 years ago. They did not include some of the elements and experience that have been developed in the international level,” he said.
He encouraged the government to adopt international rules and practices.
Rapp said the court, prosecutors and investigating agencies needed to increase their capacity as there are many who can be implicated in the future.
“What this court needs now as it moves forward to develop – I am talking about prosecutors, investigating agencies – is to develop a strategy for making sure that before it completes its work, it prioritises its cases and focuses on the most serious, high-level individuals.”
Rapp said defence lawyers raised the issue to hold the trial in a mixed court, or a UN court with international judges, or shift the court to a third country, but he rejected the ideas.
“I do not think it is realistic at this stage. I said so to the defence and they were disappointed,” he said.