HRW questions Azam verdict

[saleen_s7]

HRW questions Azam verdict
Suliman Niloy, bdnews24.com
Published: 16 Aug 2013 14:08 BdST Updated: 16 Aug 2013 15:08 BdST

File Photo
File Photo
The New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has questioned the trial process of Jamaat-e-Islami’s guru and a war-crimes convict Ghulam Azam, an observation which has been viewed by Law Minister Shafique Ahmed as interference in a subjudiced matter.


9
0
0 Print Friendly and PDF
RELATED STORIES
90 years for Jamaat guru Ghulam Azam
Jul 15 2013
Azam appeals against ICT verdict
Aug 05 2013
Appeal against Azam’s verdict
Aug 12 2013
In a statement on Friday, the human right group’s Asia Director Brad Adams said, “We sounded the alarm that the law and trial process were deficient, but the government ignored the warnings. The government has got the conviction it wanted, but it has failed to ensure a fair trial that settles once and for all whether Ghulam Azam was guilty.”

Human Rights Watch in the statement titled ‘Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on Flawed Proceedings’ listed five ‘flaws’ on the Ghulam Azam’s trial.

These are: Judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution, collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges, failure to take steps to protect defense witnesses, changes in the trial court panel and lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’.

HRW says, “Among the most serious problems is the fact that the judges stated that they conducted an investigation to make up for deficiencies in the case presented by the prosecution. Judges in Bangladesh are only empowered to examine the evidence placed in front of them by the parties to the case. The defense counsel was not aware of this investigation and was thus unable to comment on or challenge the evidence obtained by the judges, which constitutes a serious violation of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a party.”

“The investigation calls into serious question the impartiality of the court.”

“The ICT had not answered allegations of judicial bias raised by intercepted Skype and other communications in which The Economist revealed prohibited collusion between the judiciary, the prosecution, and the executive branch via an external consultant,” the HRW statement further added.

The HRW mentioned the controversy over former International Crimes Tribunal-1 Chairman Justice Nizamul Huq’s alleged Skype conversation with a Bangladeshi expatriate war crimes expert. Huq had resigned on December 11 last year following the controversy.

On July 15, the first war crimes tribunal of Bangladesh sentenced former Jamaat chief Ghulam Azam to 90 years of imprisonment after finding him guilty of all five types of crime – conspiracy, planning, incitement, complicity (abetment) and murder.

However, the judges said taking into account his age and state of his health while passing the verdict, they spared him of death penalty.

While reading out the judgement, ICT-1 Chairman Justice ATM Fazle Kabir had said that Azam should have been given the maximum punishment for all his crimes. But he has been admitted at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University because of his delicate health since he was arrested. This verdict was given after taking his age and health condition into account, Kabir had said.

However, the conviction was greeted with ‘rejection’ and frustration from freedom fighters, pro-liberation war organisations, Shahbagh’s Ganajagaran Manch and even several Leftist political parties.

Prosecution said the nation got half justice as Azam did not get the death sentence.

Azam led the Jamaat-e-Islami during the 1971 Liberation War in erstwhile East Pakistan, emerging as the linchpin of collaboration with the Pakistani military junta. Auxiliary support forces and vigilante groups raised under his command perpetrated some of the horrendous atrocities during the war to protect the unity of Pakistan.

The prosecution has already appealed against his 90-years-in-prison sentence and called for the maximum penalty. The defence earlier had also appealed seeking acquittal.

Meanwhile, reacting to the HRW statement, Law Minister Shafique Ahmed on Friday told bdnews24.com, “The HRW statement tantamount to interference into an independent country’s internal matter despite trial process meeting international standards.”

“We have tried a crime as per our laws. A phase of this [Ghulam Azam case] trial has finished. The second phase is underway. The tribunal’s verdict will be evaluated there. No such comment can be made at this point.”

“They [HRW] are trying to influence the subjudiced matter through such observations.”

The court could charge the human rights group with ‘contempt’ taking its statement into cognisance, said the Law Minister.

However, HRW Asia Director Brad Adams in the statement said, “The problems with the Azam trial are manifold, and lead to the inescapable conclusion that there has been strong judicial bias towards the prosecution and grave violations of due process rights.”

Shafique Ahmed said, “Our trial process met all international standards. Many criminals does not get as much facilities as those tried here [ICT] are getting. Overall, there was no lack of transparency.”

“They are raising questions even though the court handed down the verdict after the charges were proved. We can take actions against them if the court considers it,” he added.

More from this section
HRW questions Azam verdict - bdnews24.com

 

[Skallagrim]

Who cares!!

 

[HIMEL@BD]

What were they(HRW) doing During 1971 GENOCIDE?

 

[Skallagrim]

‘Who is HRW to comment on Azam verdict?’

Suliman Niloy, bdnews24.com Published: 2013-08-16 16:12:02.0 Updated: 2013-08-17 00:30:46.0


Barrister Tureen Afroz, a prosecutor in former Jamaat-e-Islami chief Ghulam Azam’s case in the war crimes tribunal, has harshly criticised New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) for questioning the trial process in the most sensational war crimes case in Bangladesh. In a statement on Friday, the human- rights group claimed the trial of Ghulam Azam at International Crimes Tribunal ‘was deeply flawed and did not meet international fair trial standards’. Its Asia Director Brad Adams said, “We sounded the alarm that the law and trial process were deficient, but the government ignored the warnings. “The government has got the conviction it wanted, but it has failed to ensure a fair trial that settles once and for all whether Ghulam Azam was guilty,” he claimed. In his immediate reaction, Law Minister Shafique Ahmed termed the observation as interference in a subjudice internal matter of Bangladesh. He told bdnews24.com that the court could charge the human-rights group with ‘contempt’ taking its statement into cognisance. Reacting to the HRW statement, Tureen Afroz, a Supreme Court lawyer who teaches law at BRAC University, on Friday told bdnews24.com, “I am shocked to read the HRW article and the outrageous comments made therein regarding Ghulam Azam Case!” Then she raised three questions pertinent to HRW’s earlier actions and its statement regarding the Ghulam Azam case. “First of all who is HRW to comment on our internal judicial process and matters? Is it not itself violation of international law? What HRW did when Eichmann Trial or Saddam Hossain Trial were carried out in complete violation of all standards of international law? “Did it ever protest to safeguard the so called 'international standard' then?” she asked. Her second question was did HRW ever stand to protect the rights of the victims of mass atrocities committed in 1971 since it claimed to be a human-rights organisation. “Why [didn’t it]?” She then raised a legal issue, where she asked, “More importantly, when the very matter of Ghulam Azam appeal is pending before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, can anyone, let alone HRW, at all comment on the matter?” “I expected HRW to be more compliant with and respectful to the international standards.” img On July 15, the first war crimes tribunal of Bangladesh sentenced Jamaat guru Ghulam Azam to 90 years in prisonafter finding him guilty of all five types of crime he was charged with – conspiracy, planning, incitement, complicity (abetment) and murder. However, the judges said taking into account his age and state of his health while passing the verdict, they spared him of death penalty. The prosecution said the nation got half justice as Azam did not get the death sentence. It has already appealed against his sentence and called for the maximum penalty. The defence earlier had also appealed seeking acquittal. Barrister Afroz on Friday replied to the five ‘flaws’ mentioned in the HRW statement titled ‘Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on Flawed Proceedings’. The first of the ‘flaws’ that the HRW mentioned was that the judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution It alleged collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges; failure to take steps to protect defence witnesses. The fourth ‘flaw’ was that changes were made in the trial court panel and finally, lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Afroz in her reply to the first one said, “Nowhere in the Ghulam Azam judgment did the honourable tribunal mention that they carried out an independent and/or separate investigation on behalf of the prosecution. “HRW did not also mention actually which part of the investigation was allegedly conducted so. It is a vague allegation only to shamelessly undermine our judicial process. HRW should be cautioned.” About the second one, she said, “What is the basis of such allegation? They did not provide any proof in support.” Regarding the third claim of HRW, the ICT prosecutor said, “Again a vague and completely false allegation. Defence ‘witnesses’? There was only one in the Ghulam Azam case. “Where did HRW find plural witnesses in the case. On top of that the only defence witness adduced by Ghulam Azam was his elder son, who was very much a regular attendant during the trial. If he was under any threat, then how come he attended all the sessions of the trial, including the verdict day?” She observed that HRW should have done its homework before making such ‘stupid statement’. Her fourth reply to the ‘changes in the trial court panel’ read: “What are they trying to make out here? Are they suggesting that there can never be a change of panel during the proceedings of any trial? She then went on to quen what would happen if one of the judges died or fell permanently sick or had to leave the panel for some unavoidable reasons. “This is ridiculous!” she commented. The last flaw the HRW mentioned was ‘lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’. Tureen Afroz continued, “When the appeal is pending before the Appellate Court, can anyone actually comment on the merit of the findings (lack of evidence) of the trial court?” The prosecutor called into question the HRW’s claim to be an independent trial observer. “The publication clearly shows that HRW is speaking like one of the parties of the trial. Does HRW have expertise or authority to comment on the quality of evidence in a trial process? “It is turning out to be too big for its boots.” Afroz, however, said “I do not allege HRW to be a partisan in this matter” and said “of course they have right to make a choice.” “However, if HRW does so, it should not label itself to be an 'independent trial observer' of the ICT trials or to say, an 'international organisation' per se which has its obligation under international law not to interfere in the internal matter of a country,” she said.

http://www.bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/08/16/who-is-hrw-to-comment-on-azam-verdict

 

[Skallagrim]

A rebuttal of Tureen Afroz's comments: (in Bengali)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=525197377568231&id=428835640537739&refid=17

 

[Skallagrim]

And as usual:

War Trial Verdict - HRW to be accused for contempt

 

[idune]

And as usual:

War Trial Verdict - HRW to be accused for contempt

These contempts are good because in future these judges and their beneficiary family members can be hounded by global HR and criminal prosecution.