& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Ghulam Azam's Trial

HRW says it's flawed

Statement draws flak

Staff Correspondent
Human Rights Watch yesterday claimed that the trial of former Jamaat-e-Islami chief Ghulam Azam at the international crimes tribunal was deeply flawed and it had not met the international standards.
In a report titled "Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on Flawed Proceedings", the New York-based rights organisation said the "judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution" and expressed concern over "collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges".
Human Rights Watch also expressed concern over the "failure to take steps to protect defence witnesses", and "lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt".
The Human Rights Watch in the report published in its website underFROM PAGE 1
the "News" section claimed that the defence counsels were not aware of the "investigation" and were thus unable to comment on or challenge the evidence which was a serious violation of article-14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Bangladesh was a party.
Prosecutor of the international crimes tribunals Tureen Afroz told The Daily Star yesterday, "The case is now pending with the Appellate Division [of the Supreme Court]. The statement of Human Rights Watch at this stage is tantamount to contempt of court."
"Nowhere in the Ghulam Azam judgment did the tribunal mention that it carried out an independent investigation on behalf of the prosecution.
Does the Human Rights Watch have any proof that the tribunal led any investigation?” she said, adding that it was a vague allegation at best.
The report also said the tribunal 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".
On this, Tureen told The Daily Star, “Did the Skype conversation ever take place? Even if it did, no one knows about the actual content of that conversation. What is the basis of such allegation?”
The Human Rights Watch report reads, "There have been ongoing problems with intimidation of
defence witnesses and raids on defence chambers, including in the Azam case. The trial chamber have not ordered any investigation or offered any practical solution to overcoming the security concerns expressed by defence witnesses."
Prosecutor Tureen said, "It seems they [Human Rights Watch] did not read the judgment. There was only one defence witness and he was Ghulam Azam's son who was a regular attendant of the trial and even on the judgment day showed victory sign."
In the report, the rights watchdog’s Asia Director Brad Adams claimed that they had long been supporting the efforts to deliver accountability for the atrocities committed during 1971 and to ensure
meaningful justice to victims and survivors through fair trials that meet international standards.
He 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.
"The victims of these crimes and their families deserve real answers, which can only be found through fair and transparent proceedings," he said.
Tureen, however, said, "It seems that rights are 'violated' whenever an accused is handed down punishment.
"How can Human Rights Watch claim itself to be an independent trial observer? From the publication it seems they only
follow defence statements."
Meanwhile, Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission Prof Mizanur Rahman said the Human Rights Watch made the allegations for the sake of making allegations.
"I don't take it seriously. I’m rather annoyed (by such report)," he said, adding that the Human Rights Watch and other international organisations had negative attitude towards international crimes tribunal from the very beginning.
The tribunal had set an example by considering Ghulam Azam's old age but it had not been mentioned by the international organisations, Mizanur said.
He said it seemed international organisations,
including the Human Rights Watch, feels the tribunal would have been of international standards had foreigners been appointed to the tribunal.
Bangladesh has shown the world that the trials of international crimes could be held at a domestic court, which might have irritated some people, he added.
Responding to the Human Rights Watch statement that there was lack of evidence in establishing guilt. Executive Director Sultana Kamal of Ain O Salish Kendra (a rights organisation) said there was a huge amount of documents at home and abroad to prove the genocide carried out by Jamaat-e-Islami across the country during the Liberation War.
Meanwhile, Law Minister Shafique Ahmed
yesterday said the statement of Human Rights Watch was baseless and illogical.
"There's no scope to raise question about the trial process," he told news agency the UNB.
The International Crimes Tribunal-1 sentenced Ghulam Azam to 90 years' in jail on July 15 finding him guilty in all five charges of crimes against humanity and genocide against him. Ghulam Azam has appealed against the verdict and the state has appealed against inadequate sentencing of Ghulam Azam.
The Human Rights Watch in its report mentioned that six charges were framed against him in March, 2010. In fact, Ghulam Azam had five charges framed against him in May, 2012.