A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report has claimed the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) conviction of war criminal GhulamAzam, former chief of Jamaat-e-Islami, was based on “flawed proceedings,” adding a number of other concerns regarding the trial which ended earlier this year.
The trial was “deeply flawed” and did not meet “international fair trial standards,” the HRW website read on Friday.
The charges against Azam included involvement in murder and torture of unarmed people, as well as conspiracy, planning, incitement and complicity to commit genocide and crimes against humanity during the Liberation War.
The charges were based on 61 incidents of crimes against humanity.
He was charged for five counts of conspiracy, three counts of planning, 28 counts of incitement, 22 counts of complicity and one count of murder and torture.
Azam, on July 15, was sentenced to 90 years in prison for incitement, conspiracy, planning, complicity and inaction to prevent murder during the 1971 Liberation War.
Even though the crimes are punishable by death, the International Crimes Tribunal 1 ordered the 90-year-old a jail sentence considering his age and health.
According to the HRW’s website, the rights organisation has voiced various concerns regarding Azam’s trial:
The improper conducting of the investigation by the judges “on behalf of prosecution” “Collusion and bias” among prosecutors and judges Failure to take steps to protect defence witnesses Changes in the trial court panel Lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt“Human Rights Watch has long supported the efforts to deliver accountability for the atrocities committed during the 1971 war, and to ensuring meaningful justice to victims and survivors, through fair trials which meet international standards. 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 GhulamAzam was guilty,” the website quoted Brad Adams, Asia director of the organisation, as saying.
HRW further said the fact that the judges stated that they conducted an investigation to make up for deficiencies in the case presented by the prosecution was one of the “most serious” issues.
Since judges here can only examine evidence provided to them by the parties to the case, the defence counsel “was not aware of this investigation” and was thus unable to comment on or challenge the evidence obtained by the judges, the report said.
This, according to the human rights organisation, constitutes “a serious violation of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” to which Bangladesh is a party.
The report also mentioned the ICT’s failure to answer allegations of judicial bias raised by intercepted Skype and other communications in which The Economist revealed “prohibited collusion between the judiciary, the prosecution, and the executive branch via an external consultant.”
Many conversations were regarding the trial of Azam, including ones which show that the judges “laid out a blueprint to be used by the prosecution as to how to conduct the trial, which witnesses to call, and how to question them.”
HRW claimed that these conversations make it clear that the judges were “closely advising and directing the prosecution on presenting their case against Azam,” concluding that the investigation “calls into serious question the impartiality of the court.”
In addition, there have been ongoing problems with “intimidation of defence witnesses and raids on defence chambers, including in the Azam case,” adding thatthe trial chambers are yet to order any investigation or offer practical solution to overcome security concerns expressed by defence witnesses.
“The problems with the Azam trial are manifold, and lead to the inescapable conclusion that there has been strong judicial bias towards the prosecution and grave violations of due process rights,” Adams said.
“The victims of these crimes and their families deserve real answers, which can only be found through fair and transparent proceedings,” he said.