& 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

HRW Contempt Plea

Prosecutors miss attendance at ICT

Staff Correspondent
None of around 22 war crimes prosecutors appeared at International Crimes Tribunal-1, which was to hear yesterday a New York-based rights body's reply on a contempt petition over the verdict against former Jamaat-e-Islami chief Ghulam Azam.
Talking to The Daily Star, two prosecutors expressed surprise at the absence, while one said the date was not fixed beforehand, a claim refuted by the tribunal's registrar, AKM Nasiruddin Mahmud, who said if not fixed earlier, it would not come up on the day's cause list.
Senior prosecutor Syed Haidar Ali said he was in the Supreme Court and so did not know the reason of the absence. "Are you sure none attended the tribunal?" he asked. "It should not happen. At least one person should have been present. I’m looking into the matter."
The prosecution filed the contempt petition after Human Rights Watch (HRW) posted an article on its website on August 16 last year, claiming that the trial of Ghulam Azam
FROM PAGE 3
was "deeply flawed" and "it had not met the international standards".
It also said the "judges had improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution" and expressed worries over "collusion and bias among prosecutors and judges".
Ghulam Azam, considered by many as the symbol of war crimes during Bangladesh's Liberation War in 1971, was jailed for 90 years on July 5 by the tribunal-1.
Another state lawyer, Tureen Afroz, said she was occupied with a case and not aware of yesterday's proceedings.
"The date was not fixed beforehand and therefore the matter was not mentioned in our diary," claimed Prosecutor Zead Al
Malum, adding that since the defence was to file its reply, the prosecution did not have any possibility of being prejudiced.
During the day's proceedings, HRW lawyer Anisul Hassan prayed for deferment of the hearing on the reply till June and for allowing HRW attorney Dinah Pokemner, a US citizen, to send an affidavit copy of the reply through the Bangladesh embassy in Washington DC. Otherwise, she will have to fly to Dhaka which would take time, said Anisul.
In response, the tribunal fixed March 6 to hold a hearing on its plausibility and set April 10 to file the reply.
The three-member tribunal-1 served a show cause notice on HRW on September 2 last year for its post.