& 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

Human Rights Watch

Decision on contempt rule Sept 2

Staff Correspondent
The Human Rights Watch had scandalised the International Crimes Tribunal-1 and its process by a report on the verdict of war criminal Ghulam Azam, said prosecutor Tureen Afroz yesterday.
Terming the report's allegations baseless and biased, the prosecutor said, “It has seriously damaged the dignity of the tribunal before the world.”
Decision
FROM PAGE 20
The prosecution were set to make their arguments yesterday on their petition filed with the tribunal seeking contempt proceedings against the HRW.
The tribunal is set to decide about issuing a contempt of court rule against the rights body on September 2 for its report on the former Jamaat-e-Islami chiefs conviction.
The prosecution filed the petition onTuesday.
On Friday, the New Yorkbased rights body claimed the trial of Ghulam Azam had been "deeply flawed" and "it had not met the international standards".
It said the "judges had improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution" and expressed concern over "collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges".
The rights group also expressed concern over “failure to take steps to protea defence witnesses", and "lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt".
"They (HRW] are not an independent organisation and serve purpose of private donors. The report |on Ghulam Azam's verdict] lacks truth," Tureen observed.
Raising question on the source of the report, the prosecutor said she had scrutinised seven volumes of the tribunal's entrance registers but found no name of HRW representatives.
"How did they find out about the collusion between the judges and the prosecution? Where is the proof?” she asked.
"There should be a limit of telling lies," she said citing a blog written by some Banyan, whose identity is unknown in the blog section of The Economist, as the probable source of information for the HRW.
On its allegations on the tribunal's "investigation”, Tureen said, "We have sur-
veyed eight national dailies published on the following day of Ghulam Azam’s ver-dia. Nowhere had we found the tribunal saying they had done the investigation rather mentioning they had taken the help of reference books to embellish the judgment.
"We did not even find the matter (investigation by tribunal's judges] in the immediate reaaion of the defence after the pronouncement of the verdict,” she said.
“The lie of the rights body spread throughout the world through the internet, ft causes damage not only to the tribunal but also to the human civilization," she added.
She further said in exercise of its individual or journalistic freedom of expression, the HRW interfered with the right to reputation of the tribunal.
In January 2009, when the government decided to commence trial under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, the HRW said it might not meet international fair trial standards and might be subjea to political influence. It also said death sentences might be handed down.
"Even before the commencement of the trial they declared that death sentences would be awarded," Tureen said.
Another prosecutor Tapas Kanti Baul said "The Human Rights Watch has been vehemently criticised worldwide for its motivated activities as a rights organisation."
The prosecutor urged the tribunal to issue a contempt notice against HRW Asia Direaor Brad Adams, its associate for the Asia Division Storm Tiv, and its board of direaors under section 11 (4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.
If proved, the accused would have to serve one year in jail or payTk5,000 as fine or both.