The war crimes tribunal on Sunday said Pakistan did not play the role they were supposed to do following the 1974 tripartite agreement and had not apologised for the atrocities they had committed during the Liberation War of 1971.
The International Crimes Tribunal 2 said this in reply to defence lawyer Tajul Islam’s argument in the case against the war crimes accused Abdul Alim.
On Sunday, the defence counsels started placing their closing arguments at the tribunal of Justice Obaidul Hasan, Justice Mojibur Rahman Miah and Justice Shahinur Islam.
Tajul highlighted the tripartite treaty between Bangladesh, India and Pakistan which gave immunity to 195 war crimes accused of Pakistan army. It was signed on April 9, 1974 in New Delhi by then Bangladesh foreign minister Dr Kamal Hossain, Indian foreign minister Swaran Singh, and Pakistani state minister for defence and foreign affairs Aziz Ahmed.
Tajul said: “Without trying the main perpetrators who were freed after the tripartite agreement, trial of the collaborators cannot deliver justice. Our Father of the Nation Bangabandhu forgave the perpetrators since he knew trying them could divide the nation. He made a wise decision at that time and was focused on building the nation.”
He also read excerpts of the agreement. “In the light of the foregoing and, in particular, having regard to the appeal of the prime minister of Pakistan to the people of Bangladesh to forgive and forget the mistakes of the past...The prime minister of Bangladesh had declared with regard to the atrocities and destruction committed in Bangladesh in 1971, that he wanted the people to forget the past and to make a fresh start, stating that the people of Bangladesh knew how to forgive.”
In response, the tribunal said: “Okay. Bangabandhu said ‘the people of Bangladesh knew how to forgive.’ Go through another part of the agreement which talks about the role of Pakistan following the agreement [holding trial of the 195 officers]. Did they follow it?”
Tajul said: “The provision is not clear on this matter. But according to the agreement, the option of trying these persons is open.”
The tribunal continued: “Forget about the trial, they [Pakistan] did not even said ‘sorry’ for the atrocities. This tribunal was set up to try the perpetrators who committed atrocities from inside [the country].”
Later, defence lawyer Ahsanul Huq argued for his client on the establishment of the tribunal and the Act of 1973.
“The section 1 (3) of the Act says it would come into effect ‘at once.’ But 42 years needed to follow this part. Nothing happened since the Act was enacted and suddenly in 2009 it came into force,” he said.
The tribunal stopped him and replied: “I do not know whether you have gone through the judgements that we have delivered or not. The answer of the point you are raising is given there. If you go on saying the same thing again and again, it is wastage of our time.”
In most of the verdicts delivered by the tribunal, it said the Act is meant to prosecute and punish the armed forces, the perpetrators who belonged to “auxiliary forces,” or who committed the offence as an “individuals” or member of “group of individuals.”
“Please, argue on the legal points and facts which will help your client,” the tribunal concluded and set on Monday for further procedure in the case.
