The International Crimes Tribunal 1 yesterday heard the prosecution which claimed that Human Rights Watch (HRW) had long been questioned across the world for its unethical and motivated role in reporting on human rights issues.
Taking part in the hearing on contempt of tribunal petition, the prosecution alleged that the HRW was staging a drama to stop the war crimes trial. They placed a good number of reports, research publications, opinions of former officials, and open letters of scholars as evidences against the HRW.
The prosecution, however, welcomed all human rights observers to the tribunal but said their reporting should be true and conducted in good faith.
After a near three-hour hearing, the tribunal headed by ATM Fazle Kabir scheduled September 2 for passing order on the contempt of tribunal petition. The prosecution filed the petition on August 20 after the New York-based organisation in a report, on August 16, claimed that the trial of former Jamaat-e-Islami chief Ghulam Azam trial was “deeply flawed” and “did not meet international fair trial standards.”
In the petition, the prosecution identified three opposite parties – Human Rights Watch, its Executive Director of Asia Division Brad Adams and Associate of Asia Division Storm Tiv, who is also the writer of the report.
Ghulam Azam on July 15 was handed down a 90-year jail sentence for masterminding war crimes during the Liberation War. Though his offences amounted to the death penalty, the tribunal awarded him a jail sentence taking his age under consideration. Both the prosecution and the defence have filed appeals against the verdict.
The prosecution argues that the tribunal may issue an order of contempt under section 11 (4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973. The provision states: “A Tribunal may punish any person who obstructs or abuses its process or disobeys any of its orders or directions, or does anything which tends to prejudice the case of a party before it, or tends to bring it or any of its members into hatred or contempt, or does anything which constitutes contempt of the Tribunal, with simple imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with a fine up to Tk5,000, or with both.”
In his submission, prosecutor Tapas Kanti Baul said the evidences placed at the tribunal showed that the HRW played “unethical and motivated roles in various parts of the world by its unreliable, uncredited, inaccurate and biased reports and findings on human rights matters.”
He mentioned Robert L Bernstein, a founder and former chairman of the HRW, who after leaving the organisation publicly blamed the organisation for its unethical and motivated activities. Bernstein had served the organisation for 20 years as its chairman.
The prosecution also pointed out that the HRW have not spoken about rights issue anywhere else. They have never questioned the violations of human rights in Saudi Arabia since they had received donations from the Saudi government. Moreover, the organisation’s executive director position has been held by Kenneth Roth since 1993. Roth is one of the policymakers of Sigrid Rausing Trust, a donor of HRW.
Prosecutor Tapas said the HRW had appointed Nazi policy supporters (such as Marc Garlasco) as its investigators to report on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Hearing this, Justice Jahangir Hossain, one of the members of the tribunal, joked: “They appointed the real experienced people!”
The prosecution also mentioned that the HRW appointed “pro-US terrorists, namely Shawan Jabarin, to its [Mideast] advisory board.” Justice Jahangir again intervened to quip: “They also need protection, so they appointed a terrorist. Isn’t it?”
After a two-hour-long submission by Tapas, prosecutor Tureen Afroz spoke for 45 more minutes on the legal points. She said, though the organisation claimed that there had been collusion and biasness among the prosecutors and the judges in the Ghulam Azam case, they did not give any credible proof.
The HRW mentioned an unnamed blogger of the Economist as one of its sources for the report; “is it acceptable as a source?” asked the prosecutor referring to the fact that there had been an ongoing war continued between believers and atheists in the country.
Sobhan to be quizzed at safe house
Before the hearing on contempt petition, the tribunal 1 allowed the investigation agency to question war crimes suspect Abdus Sobhan, 84, at its Dhanmondi safe house upon a prosecution plea. But it did not mention any specific date for the interrogation.
The prosecution on August 19 submitted a progress report on the investigation and sought more time to submit the formal charges. The tribunal then scheduled September 15 to submit the formal charges or a progress report on investigation against the former Pabna Jamaat-e-Islami ameer.