ICT fails to comply with its own rules: Lawyers allege
The New Nation
03 August, 2011 Wednesday
Special Correspondent
Some leading members of the legal profession have alleged that the International Crimes Tribunal has failed to comply with its own rules of procedure, depriving those taken under custody the right to lawfully defend themselves.
The International Crimes Tribunals was set up on 25 March2011. Since its formation the Tribunal has passed orders with impunity. This is because its orders are not appealable. They are also not subject to judicial review by the High Court Division, the lawyers say.
There has been international criticism of the procedure adopted by the Tribunal. Questions have been raised on the impartiality and competence of members of the Tribunal by the international community.
The orders of the Tribunal are not available to the public. Moreover, access to the Tribunal is restricted. It is not open to the general public.
Citing examples they said, On 15 July 2010, the Tribunal framed the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2010. These rules were amended on 25 October 2010 and 28 June 2011. The amended Rules of Procedure have been criticised by various international human rights organisations. In his letter of 21st March 2011 to the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, the US Ambassador at Large on War Crimes Issues, Mr. Stephen J Rapp made a number of recommendations to amend the Rules of Procedure so as to ensure a fair trial.
On 19 May 2011, the American Society of International Law(ASIL) organised 'Briefing on the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh' where the inadequacies of the Act and the Rules were highlighted by the speakers.
On 11 July 2011, the Chief Prosecutor submitted a petition of formal charge to the Tribunal containing allegations of commission of genocide and crimes against humanity against Moulana Delwar Hossain Sayedee. Upon the submission of the formal charge, the defense counsel sought a copy of the same to them in accordance with Rules 18(4) and18(5) of the Rules of under which the Prosecutor is required to make available copies of the formal charge and other relevant documents to the accused persons at the time of submission of the formal charge.
However the Tribunal said it is obligatory for the Tribunal to supply copies of the formal charge and other documents for the benefit of the accused, but it is left to the Tribunal's discretion to decide if and when the same would be made available to the Defence. This is called by lawyers a manifestly perverse interpretation of the Rules.
The rules require the prosecution to submit extra copies of the formal charge and other documents for the sole purpose that the same may be supplied to the accused so that he may prepare his defence. The Tribunal according to some veteran lawyers acted unlawfully in holding on to the documents after receiving them from the Prosecution, thereby depriving the accused persons of sufficient time and facilities for preparation of the defence case.
Again on 14 July 2011, the Tribunal took cognizance of the case against Delwar Hossain Sayedee for commission of genocide and crimes against humanity. Rule 26(3) of the amended Rules of Procedure provide that the Tribunal, on its own motion or on the application of either party may review any order, including the order of framing charge(s) in the interest of justice. Upon passing the order taking cognizance against Sayedee, the defence made a prayer before the Tribunal for obtaining a certified copy of the order, so that they may file an application for review of the said order under Rule 26(3).
The Tribunal rejected the prayer of the defence for certified copies of its order dated 14th July 2011. The defence counsel referred to Rule 26(3) of the Procedures and argued that they require a certified copy of the order in order to draft the application for review pleading appropriate grounds. The Tribunal rejected the prayer once again observing that the defence should rely on the notes it has taken of the Tribunal proceedings to file the application for review.
The Tribunal framed the Rules of Procedure, yet the Tribunal is frustrating its implementation, thereby depriving the accused of their right to a fair trial, eminent lawyers said.
(http://www.thenewnationbd.com/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=13459)
__._,_.___