At the hearing on the contempt petition filed against New York-based Human Rights Watch on Monday, the war crimes tribunal was irked at the defence who claimed that the rights body worked for peace.
The tribunal asked the defence whether they knew how many cases the HRW was facing for making “false statements.”
Led by Justice ATM Fazle Kabir, the tribunal 1 said this when counsel for HRW Asaduzzaman said: “This organisation was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. We want to know whether we should bring a Nobel laureate to our country as accused.”
He also claimed that whenever human rights became vulnerable at any part of the world, “the HRW raises its voice first.”
The tribunal said: “We have to judge both sides of their work that may be related to peace or conflict.”
The tribunal in its rule had asked the HRW to reply within three weeks as to why a contempt allegation should not be brought against it. The date was extended twice.
It issued the notice as the HRW had commented on the trail and verdict of Jamaat guru Ghulam Azam in a article titled “Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on flawed proceedings.”
After delivering the notice, the tribunal asked the foreign ministry to provide respondents with a copy of the order.
Asaduzzaman submitted in his submission that his client had not received a copy of the petition and the show cause notice.
Prosecutor Zead-Al-Malum opposed the time plea saying that the defence had enough time and that their counsels could access the documents whenever they wanted.
Later it fixed December 8 for submission of the response to the contempt notice it had issued on September 2 as the accused counsel pleaded for eight weeks’ adjournment.
The respondents are the HRW, 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.
The tribunal in its observation earlier said the opposite parties most unethically made five illegal comments about the trial process of Ghulam Azam, which is 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 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,” the tribunal said.
On Monday, the same tribunal deferred until December 8 the date for pronouncing the order on the contempt notice issued against two journalists of the London-based weekly The Economist.
Mustafizur Rahman Khan, counsel for Rob Gifford and Adam Roberts, chief editor and the South Asia bureau chief of the weekly, was present at the tribunal.
Earlier he told the tribunal in his submission that his clients had not done anything contemptuous by making contact over phone with the tribunal’s former chairman. He, however, admitted that the journalists should have made contact with the judges through the tribunal’s registrar, which is the proper way.
