Please see the following for a sample letter to send to your MP or representative. A copy can be downloaded here: Letter_to_MPs_on_ICT 02-13

Dear

The International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh

Bangladesh is currently trying alleged war criminals for crimes committed during the independence war of 1971, under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 as amended in 2009. This Act established the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). The original intention of the Act was to try the Pakistani military and auxiliary forces, which were considered responsible for war crimes committed during Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971.

However, instead of trying these Pakistani forces in the aftermath of the war, the Act is being used today in a manner that targets members of the political opposition, alleging that they engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity as members of the Bengali auxiliary forces of the Pakistani Army. Further, the Act does not encompass alleged war crimes committed against non-Bengalis (predominantly Biharis) by pro-liberation freedom fighters. Therefore, there is widespread concern that the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act is being used as a political tool to weaken the opposition, rather than the tool for justice that it should be. This is against a background of brutal suppression by the governing Awami League party of freedom of speech and political expression, including the carrying out of extra-judicial killings, torture and detention without trial, as reported by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The International Crimes Tribunal has been the subject of concern to many leading international bodies and organisations, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the International Bar Association, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as US Ambassador for War Crimes Stephen Rapp. Key concerns include:

• the accused are afforded neither internationally accepted defendants’ rights nor fundamental national constitutional rights;
• lack of definitions for key crimes, including ‘crimes against humanity’;
• interrogation of defendants in the absence of counsel and without knowledge of the charges against them;
• extraordinary sources accepted as evidence, including general media reports and hearsay[1]; and
• apparent bias on the part of the Tribunal members based on participation at mock “peoples’ courts”, which prejudged the cases of key defendants, with mock convictions and the burning of effigies to symbolise their execution;
• collusion between judges, the prosecution, the government and international lawyers with respect to court proceedings and  the drafting of final judgments (see further below).

Professor Ghulam Azam, aged 90, was arrested on 11 January 2012 on 62 charges including the absurd charge of responsibility “for all atrocities committed across the country between March 25, 1971, and December 16, 1971”. Azam politically supported the unity of West and East Pakistan at the time of the war of independence, but he was opposed to a military solution to political problems and spoke out repeatedly against the crimes perpetrated by the military and paramilitary. Ghulam Azam’s family, many of whom are British citizens, are deeply concerned at the allegations being made against him and fear that he may eventually be convicted by virtue of media reports and hearsay evidence alone. The punishment for any such conviction will almost certainly be execution,[2] probably by hanging.

Azam is currently detained under very difficult conditions; aggravated by the fact that he has a number of age-related ailments. Despite not yet being indicted on any charges, he is being held virtually in solitary isolation and permitted merely a half-hour visit from his family a week, which is occasionally denied.

In November 2012, Human Rights Watch has, expressed concern regarding an alleged defence witness in one of the cases who was allegedly abducted by plain clothes police outside the tribunal gates.[3]  Defence lawyers have been intimidated and harassed by Bangladeshi police and intelligence services.[4] In December 2012, the Economist magazine published an analysis of the contents of leaked email and Skype communications between the chairman of the ICT and a Brussels-based lawyer of Bangladeshi origin.[5] According to the Economist, the communications indicated collusion between the judge, the prosecution and Bangladeshi government. The leaks resulted in the chairman resigning from the tribunal; however the tribunal has continued to proceed with the relevant cases, despite newly appointed judges not having been present for the entire trial.[6]

United Nations human rights experts have expressed concerns regarding the impartiality of judges and the prosecution, and their independence from the executive. They have also stressed that compliance with international standards of fair trial and due process should be at their most stringent when the death penalty is being imposed.[7]

Most recently, the Bangladeshi government amended the ICT legal framework in order to enable the prosecution to overturn a sentence imposed on one of the defendants, a step which Human Rights Watch considers “make a mockery of the trial process”. Human Rights Watch also reported that defence witnesses are deciding not to appear in court out of fear for their safety. It also expressed concern that the judges will be forced to give death sentence in all other cases – including Azam’s.[8]

I respectfully request that you table a Parliamentary Question on this matter and do all that is in your power to stop this injustice continuing. I also request that the British government send a message of concern to the Government of Bangladesh regarding the human rights situation generally and specifically the on-going war crimes trials.

Yours sincerely,

Key International Responses to Bangladesh ICT.

Please continue to campaign against the unfair and illegal trial of Professor Ghulam Azam

Points of note:

• Following intimidation and the aggressive nature of the Shahbag protests, many defence witnesses have been too afraid for their safety and the protection of their families to appear in court and testify for the accused. Climate of fear undermines this sham tribunal. Prof Azam began with thousands of witnesses, the court limited it [on prosecution request, astoundingly] to twelve, they are now proceeding on just one defence witness statement. This means Prof Azam had a total of one witness permitted in this high profile case of 52 charges that is 42 yrs after the events of 71.
  
• The defence lawyers have been harassed and intimidated and lawyers from abroad have been prevented from entering Bangladesh to provide assistance to the defence team.
• The government have passed a law which allows them to challenge the judge’s sentence in the case – this contravenes international legal agreements that Bangladesh is party to.
• There is clear evidence of collusion between the government, the original judge Nizamul Hoq (who has since resigned) and prosecutors.
• Due to the current climate of fear in Bangladesh, there is no possibility of a fair trial and the trial must be moved to an international setting with impartial observers.

Please act now to prevent a serious miscarriage of justice that will seriously damage Bangladesh’s future!

How you can help

Please sign this petition to the UK government if you are a British citizen

Please sign this petition to the US government if you are a US citizen

Join the growing number of voices criticizing the Bangladesh government and its illegal trial: 

Facebook Free Ghulam Azam

Twitter @FreeGhulamAzam

The recent events in Bangladesh are dealt with in this article by Mahin Khan for Open Democracy.

The text is below:

Laws of Passion – Shahbag Protests

The second verdict handed down by Bangladesh’s war crimes tribunal is life imprisonment. Now a death sentence is being demanded in mass protests supported by the ruling regime, with calls for violence that extend into Bangladeshi society. Yet the guilty verdict itself may be a far cry from sound.

Thousands have gathered across Bangladesh in protest across several cities. Images of the freedom movements of the Middle East are evoked, but this is no freedom movement. The protesters have gathered to speak out against the second verdict handed down by the Bangladesh International War Crimes Tribunal (ICT). Abdul Quader Molla, a senior leader of the opposition party, Jamaat-i-Islami, was found guilty by the ICT of crimes against humanity and sentenced to life imprisonment. To the protestors, who began their movement in the Shahbag crossing of the capital Dhaka, this is not enough. They want Molla and the other accused hanged.

Molla denies having committed the crimes and repeated his denial upon receiving the sentence. His party has strongly condemned the verdict as politically motivated while his lawyers have pledged to appeal to the high court. Among the concerns raised by the defence are that the prosecution only presented 12 witnesses, many of whom were ‘hearsay’ witnesses and beneficiaries of the ruling Awami League led regime that has championed this tribunal. More tellingly, the defence themselves were permitted to only present six witnesses, half those permitted the prosecution, in this high profile and much belated war crimes case. Ultimately, the lawyers observed that the trial dealt with deeply emotional issues and the judges had permitted their emotions to cloud their judgement.

The concerns are glaring. Nonetheless, the government’s junior Law Minister, Qamrul Islam, has expressed dissatisfaction at the ‘leniency’ of the verdict. Islam has, incredibly, confirmed the government is now preparing to make changes to the ICT Act to allow the prosecution to appeal the verdict of life imprisonment and seek the higher sentence of execution. Under current laws the prosecution can only appeal acquittals. The Law Commission of Bangladesh has already presented draft amendments to the Bangladesh Law Ministry.

There has been much international criticism for the ICT, and not without reason. The most recent, and most high profile, includes a statement issued by the United Nations in which Christof Heyns, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, “expressed alarm” at the fair trial and due process concerns raised, stating “Capital punishment may be imposed only following proceedings that give all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial and due process, at least equal to those stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a State party.”

Not long before the UN statement, Human Rights Watch, in its latest of a series of press releases expressing concerns over the ICT and as part of its World Report 2013, condemned the current running of the tribunal. The report commented on “glaring violations of fair trial standards” in the trials of the ICT, observing that “serious flaws in the law and rules of procedure governing these trials have gone unaddressed, despite proposals from the US government and many international experts.”

These are not the only reputable – and clearly impartial – international bodies to have expressed concerns. Apprehensions have been vocalised by members of the House of Lords in Britain, Lord Avebury and Lord Carlile. The US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, Stephen J Rapp has also spoken out, as has the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales and the International Centre for Transitional Justice. Critique for the current process has also come from the International Bar Association, as well as Suzannah Linton, a respected legal academic. Previous statements of concern issued by Human Rights Watch, particularly regarding an abducted defence witness, the need for retrials following a whistleblower leak that exposed improper coordination between judges, prosecution and government, and on the trials’ flawed legal framework, can be viewed here, here and here.

Perhaps the most interesting international report on the ICT, however, came from The Economist. In an analysis, the British based news magazine revealed it had been given a cache of leaked material that exposed ‘a disturbing pattern’ of collusion between the presiding judge of the tribunal, Nizamul Haque Nasim, an international lawyer based in Brussels, Ziauddin Ahmed, and the prosecution team. Furthermore, it became clear from the leaks that the government was applying serious pressure on the ICT to come up with quick verdicts.

For their part, the opposition party, Jamaat-i-Islami, and its youth wing, Chatra Shibir, have been protesting the partial and political nature of the ICT, under which all their senior most leaders stand accused. They have, however, been specific in asserting that they will stand by any new court that is established on fair grounds and following due process. These protests, while large and countrywide, have not enjoyed the same widespread and rose-tinted coverage by the pro-regime media as Shahbag has. Instead, this opposition has been sharply and consistently condemned as a ‘conspiracy’ to undermine the tribunal, with complete disregard for the opposition party’s expressed acceptance of a tribunal that respects due process and fulfills international standards. Meanwhile, the police, in coalition with the ruling regime’s youth, the Bangladesh Chatra League, have administered a brutal crackdown on opposition rallies, leaving many dead and arresting hundreds. Recent protests resulted in four deaths of Jamaat and Shibir members, including a boy of class 10.

The protests in Shahbag and elsewhere in the country, are an interesting addition to the mix. These protestors, unlike the opposition, have faced no police violence; indeed the police have been helping them along by diverting traffic (meanwhile, police have prevented another opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, from holding a prescheduled rally on Saturday). This is perhaps unsurprising, given the protesters of Shahbag are repeating the very demands members of the ruling regime have been making throughout the ICT process. While Shahbag may claim to be apolitical, it is evident their concordance with the nation’s ruling politicians is doing much to assist the cause. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself has openly expressed solidarity with the protest and committed herself to fulfilling the protestors’ demands, stating in parliament “Every word of their oath is justified. We will do whatever necessary to implement their oath. It is our commitment” and even whimsically commenting “My soul is also with them, I wish I could join them at Shahbagh.”

It has also proven almost impossible to reason with the protestors, many of whom aggressively denounce any critique of their movement as “pro-Pakistani”, “pro-war criminal”, “unpatriotic” and accuse critics of being “razakars” (“collaborators” – a derogatory term for those deemed to have assisted the Pakistan army in 1971), “neo-razakars” or “children of war criminals” among any number of other tasteless epithets. That blindly angry individuals of this kind are likely to descend upon this article too is quite expected.

The protest has gathered people of varying ages with a common cause. Photos are appearing of protestors wearing “we want razakars hanged” bandannas across their forehead, while Shahbag slogans are being broadcast across the media: “We have only one demand, hang the Razakars”, “Hanging, we want hanging!”, “Make batons, beat Shibir”, “Throw shoes at the face of Razakars”, “catch Shibir and slaughter them”. Meanwhile, there have been placards proclaiming “I want to murder Quader Molla and spend two months in prison”. Even young children have been photographed with “we want the razakars hanged” painted in blood red across their torso.

The terms of this protest are truly disturbing in their open advocacy of violence and capital punishment, particularly in their inclusion of children in this violent and vindictive approach. While Bangladesh was freed as a nation in 1971, it is clear that it is yet to be freed from the aggressive hate of the dominant liberation narrative. Much as the Bengali media may try to claim it, this rally is no Tahrir Square, where the noble cause of protest was freedom from oppressive dictatorship and the establishment of democracy. This rally is one of hate and revenge. As one astute blogger notes, this is not Shahbag Square, this is Shahbag More with more people than usual. Some protestors have even created the slogan, “we’ve got the razakars, what about their children?” Little is left to be said.

The Shahbag protestors have also been calling for the banning of Jamaat-i-Islami, taking pledges to boycott many of Jamaat’s institutions, including hospitals and banks. That a democratic party – the only one to be internally democratic in structure in a nation of dynastic political parties – should be banned in the name of secular democracy is an incredible claim. As a registered political party that observes due political processes, there is little claim to ban the party if democracy is to be respected. The democratic way to oppose would be to use the ballot – if you don’t like them, don’t vote for them. Yet this fact appears to elude the self-proclaimed secular democrats of this protest, and a more autocratic law of governance seems to paradoxically reign.

Aristotle states in his Politics that “the law is reason unaffected by desire” (in a more popular variant: “the law is reason free from passion”). The Shahbag protest only confirms that Bangladesh is singularly ill-suited to hold a tribunal over the terrible war crimes of 1971. As the glaringly controversial and compromised tribunal continues to conduct problematic trials, the people on the ground of Shahbag are evidently more interested in revenge fed by deep vitriolic passions than true justice conducted by a rational and balanced court of law. For this reason, among the great many others, it is imperative that the Bangladesh ICT be transferred abroad, to be conducted under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, where heated passions of either party in this conflict cannot compromise a court in which lives – both those murdered in 1971 and those behind bars today – are in the balance.