The war crimes tribunal issued an order to Human Rights Watch on Monday to show cause as to why a contempt charge should not be brought against it for commenting “illegally” on the conviction of war criminal Ghulam Azam.
In its order, the three-member International Crimes Tribunal 1 headed by Justice ATM Fazle Kabir asked the New York-based organisation to respond within three weeks. It set September 30 for further order on this matter.
After delivering the order, the tribunal asked the foreign ministry to provide the respondents with a copy of the order.
The respondents are the Human Rights Watch, its San Francisco-based Executive Director of Asia Division Brad Adams and Washington-based Associate of Asia Division Storm Tiv, who is also the writer of the report published on August 16.
They were asked to reply to the notice by themselves, or to appoint a lawyer.
In the order, the tribunal said the prosecution had submitted that Storm Tiv wrote an article on the trial process of the former Jamaat-e-Islami chief under the direct supervision of Brad Adams. It was published on the HRW website under the headline “Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on flawed proceedings.”
The tribunal on August 22 heard the contempt petition filed by the prosecution on August 20. They alleged that the HRW was staging a drama to stop the war crimes trial.
On July 15, Ghulam Azam was handed down a 90-year jail sentence for masterminding war crimes during the 1971 Liberation War.
Monday, the tribunal said the opposite parties most unethically made five illegal comments about the trial process of Ghulam Azam a sub judice matter knowing that two appeals against the conviction order and sentence were pending before the Appellate Division. “Thus, they have illegally intervened in the judicial process of an independent country.”
The accused neither made an enquiry into the matter to find out the truth nor did they attend the trial proceedings in the case.
The tribunal said the respondents “deliberately as well as unethically” cast a slur on the dignity and reputation of the judges by their “scandalous report.” It has “tarnished the image and honour of the judges of the tribunal in the estimation of the people at home and abroad.”