Ain o Salish Kendra has blasted Human Rights Watch (HRW) for its report which shed doubts and questioned legal proceedings of the war crimes tribunal's verdict against Ghulam Azam, Bdnews24 reported Saturday.
ZI Khan Panna, general secretary of the legal aid and human rights organisation, alleged the New York-based human rights group was trying to undermine public trust in Bangladesh’s judiciary by “leveling ‘false’ accusations internationally,” the news website read.
HRW released a report on Friday in which it claimed the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) conviction of the former chief of Jamaat-e-Islami, was based on “flawed proceedings.”
The trial was “deeply flawed” and did not meet “international fair trial standards,” the HRW website read on Friday.
In response to this, Panna told bdnews24.com: “The statement proves HRW has sided with the war criminals. This is against human rights and is nothing but pro-imperialism.”
He then tagged ICT as "the world’s best tribunal" for trying crimes against humanity, according to the BDNews24 website.
HRW’s report on Friday had further 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 doubtIt also 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.”
