গত সপ্তাহে বিশ্বের দুই প্রধান মানবাধিকার সংস্থা যুদ্ধাপরাধ বিচার নিয়ে তাদের মতামত তুলে ধরেছে: 7 February 2013 BANGLADESH: UNITED NATIONS EXPERTS WARN THAT JUSTICE FOR THE PAST REQUIRES FAIR TRIALS GENEVA – Two United Nations human rights experts expressed concern on Thursday about the death sentence passed by the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh against Mr. Abdul Kalam Azad, following a trial conducted in absentia that did not provide for all the guarantees of a fair trial and due process. In a second verdict issued on 5 February, the Tribunal sentenced Mr. Abdul Kader Molla to life imprisonment. Judicial proceedings are underway in several other cases and there is a risk that the defendants could also be sentenced to death. “Given the historic importance of these trials and the possible application of the death penalty, it is vitally important that all defendants before the Tribunal receive a fair trial,” said the two United Nations Special Rapporteurs. Christof Heyns, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, expressed alarm at the fair trial and due process concerns raised during proceedings that led to the imposition of the death penalty against Mr. Azad, including that the trial was conducted in absentia. “International law requires compliance with the most stringent fair trial and due process guarantees in cases where death sentences are imposed,” he stressed. “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,” he added. “I am concerned by questions that have been raised about the impartiality of judges and prosecution services of the Tribunal, as well as their independence from the executive,” said Gabriela Knaul, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. “Witnesses and lawyers for the defence have also complained about an atmosphere of hostility, intimidation and harassment,” she added. “Due process requires at a minimum that defendants are able to speak freely with their counsel, have adequate time to conduct their defence, and the ability to call witnesses to speak on their behalf,” Ms. Knaul said. “The principle of equality of arms should be respected at all stages of the proceedings.” The Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal established by the Government of Bangladesh in March 2010 is in fact as a domestic court with the jurisdiction and competence to try and punish any person accused of committing atrocities, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, in Bangladesh, including during the country’s 1971 independence war. February 1, 2013 যুদ্ধাপরাধ বিচার নিয়ে মানবাধিকার সংগঠন HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Glaring violations of fair trial standards became apparent in 2012 in the trials of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), a wholly domestic court set up to try those accused of war crimes during the 1971 war of independence. One of the present government’s central campaign pledges in 2008 was to ensure that these long overdue trials took place. Human Rights Watch has long called for justice for victims in the 1971 liberation war. However, 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. All the ICT trials underway in 2012 were replete, with complaints from both the prosecution and defense. Each side accused the other of witness intimidation. In one apparently serious irregularity, the prosecution claimed that it was unable to produce several of its witnesses and asked that written statements be admitted as evidence, absent any direct or redirect examination. The court granted the request despite the fact that the defense produced government safe house logbooks which appeared to show that some of these witnesses had been in the safe house and available to testify. In one case, when on November 5 the defense attempted to bring one of these witnesses, Shukho Ranjan Bali, to court, he was abducted from the gates of the court house by police officers in a marked police van. In December, The Economist published an article detailing some hacked email and Skype conversations between the chairman of the ICT and an external adviser based in Brussels. These communications revealed longstanding prohibited contact between the Chairman, the government, the prosecution, and the advisor. They showed direct government interference in the operations of the ICT. The publication of these communications caused the Chairman to resign, leaving a bench in which none of the three judges has heard the totality of the evidence against the accused. Motions for retrials in four of the cases due to these communications were rejected by the tribunal, calling into question its impartiality. শাহবাগে তারন্যের গনজাগরনকে স্যালুট জানিয়ে আমি বলতে চাই আসচ্ছ বিচারের মাধ্যমে এদের ফাঁসি দেয়া হলে এই সমস্যা আরো ঘনভূত হবে।আমি শেষ করতে চাই HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH এর দক্ষিন এশিয়া বিষয়ক পরিচালক ব্রাড এ্যাডমস এর বিশ্লেষন দিয়ে: “The trials against the alleged war criminals are deeply problematic, riddled with questions about the independence and impartiality of the judges and fairness of the process,” Adams said. “This is tragic, as those responsible for serious crimes could end up appearing to be victims of a miscarriage of justice. By dismissing all criticism out of hand without any real inquiry into them, the government shows it is more concerned about winning votes than about following the rule of law.”