The war crimes tribunal yesterday disposed of the contempt notice it had issued upon New York-based Human Rights Watch asking it to be more circumspect and careful in making any comment or placing statement on the judiciary of Bangladesh.
“People like opposite parties in a civilised society got no mandate to exceed the limit of law. Everybody knows that all are equal in the eye of law,” said the International Crimes Tribunal 1.
A comment cannot be fair which are not truly stated and accurate. “Any unfair criticism of judgement underling the confidence of the judiciary amounts to contempt,” it said.
The three-member tribunal said: “It is the worst kind of contempt to scandalise court or its judges by the commentators without having adequate knowledge on the fact in issue. It is also a contempt of court touching the impartiality and integrity of a judge or making sarcastic remarks regarding his judicial competence.
“On scrutiny of the dossier presented by the parties concerned [prosecution and defence], the issue [HRW report] in hands is found to be contemptuous against the opposite parties [HRW, its Asia Director Brad Adams and associate for HRW Asia Division Storm Tiv].”
The prosecution on August 20 last year filed the contempt petition against HRW’s board of directors, its Executive Director of Asia Division Brad Adams and its associate for the Asia Division Storm Tiv for making “biased, baseless, utterly false, fabricated and ill-motivated allegations” in its report regarding the trial of former Jamaat-e-Islami chief Ghulam Azam.
The HRW report reads: “Human Rights Watch’s concerns about the Azam trial include: judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution; collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges; failure to take steps to protect defence witnesses; changes in the trial court panel; and lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The organisation also alleged that the law minister and the law state minister had interfered in the independence of judiciary at the tribunal.
Tribunal Member Justice Jahangir Hossain in the order said: “They [HRW] neither made an inquiry into the matter nor did they attend any proceedings of the tribunal but hypothetically made the biased, illegal and unethical report. They wilfully but unethically tarnished the dignity and image of the tribunal and its judges.
“We are expecting more circumspection, understanding, discretion and judgement on the part of the opposite parties [HRW] because they are strongly claiming that they speak on behalf of the distressed and oppressed people and of their fundamental rights.”
Mentioning that US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Stephen J Rapp visited the tribunal and lauded the roles of the judges, the tribunal said: “However, as the accused party sought mercy at the initial stage of the hearing and it was the first contempt notice issued against them ever, we are herewith disposing of the matter.”
After passing the order, the prosecution pleaded to the tribunal seeking two orders – one is to ask the HRW to upload the order in their official website and another is to send the order to the Foreign Ministry giving direction to communicate with the US government so they can share the directives.
The tribunal rejected the pleas saying: “We will upload it [the order] in our official website.”
Then law minister Shafique Ahmed last year lambasted the HRW saying: “Where did they get such nerve? Who gave them the right? They have been working as a lobbyist [of Jamaat] or else they could not present such a report.”