It should never have come to this. If we look at the crimes that the tribunal found Quader Molla guilty of, and if we compare them to the crimes for which other defendants, both in the war crimes trials and in everyday judicial proceedings in Bangladesh, have received the death penalty, it is hard to argue that the death sentence he has received is excessive or unwarranted.
We do not know on what basis the tribunal originally judged that the crimes committed by Molla did not warrant a death sentence, but it seems fair to say that the sentence handed down on appeal by the Supreme Court appears to be more consistent with the crimes for which he has been judged guilty by the tribunal.
The unconventional procedure through which we arrived at this final judgement, with the law being amended retroactively to allow the prosecution to appeal both verdict and sentence, does not sit well with us, nor the fact that the law appeared to have been amended in response to public pressure, which justice should be immune from.
However, in the final analysis, we cannot say that justice was not done. Quader Molla had been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the tribunal, and, under the law of the land, the appropriate sentence for the crimes that he has been found guilty of, is death.
We hope that justice will continue to proceed in this case, and that the verdict is carried out with neither unseemly haste nor delay, in full accordance with the laws of this land.
