Opinion : Steven on trial of war crimes in Bangladesh
Md. Nazrul Islam Khan
The war crimes trial is the most important issue at present in Bangladesh. It is also one of the election pledges of the Grand Alliance led by Awami League. The trial of war crimes is a peculiar matter which is the first experience for Bangladesh and that's why most caution wishes to be observed as otherwise all arrangements shall not perceive the light of success. It is indubitable that in the last parliamentary election young people voted with an innocent aspiration to ensure that the criminals of the war must be brought to the book and now if their innocent mandates are used to gain ulterior motives then those who are installed in power may require to wait up to the next parliamentary election to get a good lesson. By utilizing state power name shake trial may be possible but justice may stay far away to achieve.
Recently on 13 October 2010 the Supreme Court Bar Association organized a seminar on 'Human Rights: Bangladesh Perspective' at Hotel Sonargaon which was presided over by the President of the Bar. Steven Kay QC spoke at the seminar as special guest. Mr. Steven is a leading practitioner in international criminal law and founder member of the European Criminal Bar Association. He is also the founder member of the International Criminal Law Bureau. He has appeared before the International Tribunals for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR). He was defense counsel in the first case prosecuted before the ICTY and the first war crimes trial held since Nuremberg and Tokyo.
He acted in the trial of the former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic first as Amicus Curiae and subsequently as assigned defense counsel. At the seminar he strappingly criticized the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973 and First Amendment of the Constitution, as they are utterly inconsistent with the basic as well as fundamental principles of criminal justice. He also condemned use of the word 'International Tribunal' as there subsist nothing international matter in the business of the recently formed tribunal in Bangladesh under the said Act rather it exports almost all fundamental principles of criminal justice recognized in every civilized country under diverse international treaties and charters. At the seminar Mr. Steven ornately discussed in which manner the Act refused the right of an accused to be tried by a fair and impartial tribunal, the protection from self-incrimination and so on. Commenting on the First Constitutional Amendment he said that this amendment had the effect of withdrawing constitutional rights from a particular group of people within Bangladesh society who were not even convicted but at the most were only suspected of such crimes. He articulated that it was for the first time when inequality had been introduced into the Bangladesh justice system.
In this global village Bangladesh is a party to many international political organizations and is committed to fulfill their obligations.
At the Seminar Mr. Steven quoted Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognized the equality before courts or tribunals, the principle of presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination. But these rights are absolutely denied to the suspects of war crimes. In fact, such farcical legal provisions are sufficient to furnish the golden opportunity to the ruling party to harass the political opponents in whimsical manner as they are without redress.
He also reminded that Bangladesh is legally bound to ensure fairness, freedom from arbitrariness, impartiality, presumption of innocence and certainty in trial. Finally, Mr. Steven said that it is apparent that the amendments made to the Constitution in 1973 are in contradiction with those principles adopted by the State of Bangladesh and should now provide an opportunity for a declaration by the Supreme Court as to the unlawfulness of those amendments.
In fact, in true sense those are now in Bangladesh working with war crimes are not well trained and acquainted with this peculiar field of law. Mr. Steven as a veteran expert having huge experiences in this arena indicated to many lacuna and loopholes in the law of the war crimes trial in Bangladesh and simultaneously suggested some measures which require to be taken to make the trial lawful as well as acceptable to the international communities.
It needs to be noted that the people of Bangladesh never desire to experience further political harassment as well as character assassination of political opponents by using the war crimes issue. No legal principle support any trial of accomplices ignoring the real culprits and that's why the demand for trial of the 195 identified war criminals already raised from divergent corners and the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association at the Seminar emphasized on the same issue. He aptly uttered that the trial of war criminals must be held in order to secure justice and uphold the rule of law. He also added that the Act of 1973 must be amended so that it conforms to international standards.
It is apparent that under present legal provision no meaningful trial of war criminals is possible at all rather the present trial may secure the ill-intention of the government to desert political opponents as alleged by different corners.
If it is the real plight then it must be noted that the eyes of people are still alert on their actions and the government must not be evaded the inevitable consequences in the next election. The seminar furnished a great opportunity for the government to consider the recommendations made by the veteran experts of war crimes to ensure fair trial and justice, and to satisfy international standards. But if the crying for justice remains unheeded then the trial in Bangladesh shall give birth one after one hated Raja Nandkumar case.
(Md. Nazrul Islam Khan can be reached at nikhan_law @yahoo.com)
http://www.ittefaq.com/issues/2010/10/26/news0416.htm
The war crimes trial is the most important issue at present in Bangladesh. It is also one of the election pledges of the Grand Alliance led by Awami League. The trial of war crimes is a peculiar matter which is the first experience for Bangladesh and that's why most caution wishes to be observed as otherwise all arrangements shall not perceive the light of success. It is indubitable that in the last parliamentary election young people voted with an innocent aspiration to ensure that the criminals of the war must be brought to the book and now if their innocent mandates are used to gain ulterior motives then those who are installed in power may require to wait up to the next parliamentary election to get a good lesson. By utilizing state power name shake trial may be possible but justice may stay far away to achieve.
Recently on 13 October 2010 the Supreme Court Bar Association organized a seminar on 'Human Rights: Bangladesh Perspective' at Hotel Sonargaon which was presided over by the President of the Bar. Steven Kay QC spoke at the seminar as special guest. Mr. Steven is a leading practitioner in international criminal law and founder member of the European Criminal Bar Association. He is also the founder member of the International Criminal Law Bureau. He has appeared before the International Tribunals for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR). He was defense counsel in the first case prosecuted before the ICTY and the first war crimes trial held since Nuremberg and Tokyo.
He acted in the trial of the former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic first as Amicus Curiae and subsequently as assigned defense counsel. At the seminar he strappingly criticized the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973 and First Amendment of the Constitution, as they are utterly inconsistent with the basic as well as fundamental principles of criminal justice. He also condemned use of the word 'International Tribunal' as there subsist nothing international matter in the business of the recently formed tribunal in Bangladesh under the said Act rather it exports almost all fundamental principles of criminal justice recognized in every civilized country under diverse international treaties and charters. At the seminar Mr. Steven ornately discussed in which manner the Act refused the right of an accused to be tried by a fair and impartial tribunal, the protection from self-incrimination and so on. Commenting on the First Constitutional Amendment he said that this amendment had the effect of withdrawing constitutional rights from a particular group of people within Bangladesh society who were not even convicted but at the most were only suspected of such crimes. He articulated that it was for the first time when inequality had been introduced into the Bangladesh justice system.
In this global village Bangladesh is a party to many international political organizations and is committed to fulfill their obligations.
At the Seminar Mr. Steven quoted Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognized the equality before courts or tribunals, the principle of presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination. But these rights are absolutely denied to the suspects of war crimes. In fact, such farcical legal provisions are sufficient to furnish the golden opportunity to the ruling party to harass the political opponents in whimsical manner as they are without redress.
He also reminded that Bangladesh is legally bound to ensure fairness, freedom from arbitrariness, impartiality, presumption of innocence and certainty in trial. Finally, Mr. Steven said that it is apparent that the amendments made to the Constitution in 1973 are in contradiction with those principles adopted by the State of Bangladesh and should now provide an opportunity for a declaration by the Supreme Court as to the unlawfulness of those amendments.
In fact, in true sense those are now in Bangladesh working with war crimes are not well trained and acquainted with this peculiar field of law. Mr. Steven as a veteran expert having huge experiences in this arena indicated to many lacuna and loopholes in the law of the war crimes trial in Bangladesh and simultaneously suggested some measures which require to be taken to make the trial lawful as well as acceptable to the international communities.
It needs to be noted that the people of Bangladesh never desire to experience further political harassment as well as character assassination of political opponents by using the war crimes issue. No legal principle support any trial of accomplices ignoring the real culprits and that's why the demand for trial of the 195 identified war criminals already raised from divergent corners and the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association at the Seminar emphasized on the same issue. He aptly uttered that the trial of war criminals must be held in order to secure justice and uphold the rule of law. He also added that the Act of 1973 must be amended so that it conforms to international standards.
It is apparent that under present legal provision no meaningful trial of war criminals is possible at all rather the present trial may secure the ill-intention of the government to desert political opponents as alleged by different corners.
If it is the real plight then it must be noted that the eyes of people are still alert on their actions and the government must not be evaded the inevitable consequences in the next election. The seminar furnished a great opportunity for the government to consider the recommendations made by the veteran experts of war crimes to ensure fair trial and justice, and to satisfy international standards. But if the crying for justice remains unheeded then the trial in Bangladesh shall give birth one after one hated Raja Nandkumar case.
(Md. Nazrul Islam Khan can be reached at nikhan_law @yahoo.com)
http://www.ittefaq.com/issues/2010/10/26/news0416.htm
__._,_.___
