& 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

British Journalist

Tribunal sets Apr 17 for decision on contempt

Staff Correspondent
The International Crimes Tribunal-2 yesterday fixed April 17 for a decision on contempt proceedings against David Bergman, a Dhaka-based British journalist, for his write-ups that allegedly questioned the death figure of the Liberation War and demeaned the tribunals' dignity.
The three-member tribunal led by Justice Obaidul Hassan with members Justice Md Mozibur Rahman Miah and Justice Md Shahinur Islam set the date after hearing Bergman's replies.
In response to a contempt petition filed by a Supreme Court lawyer, the tribunal on February 20 asked Bergman to explain his write-ups posted on his personal blog that focused on the indictment order passed on Delawar Hossain Sayedee and the verdict in the case against Abul Kalam Azad. Bergman on March 18 submitted his replies through his lawyers.
The petitioner alleged that Bergman, in an article "Sayedee indictment-1971 deaths" on November 11, 2011 had "made relentless efforts to justify that the tribunal was absolutely wrong in mentioning three million deaths and the number of 200,000 women raped in 1971 with reference to various unsupported, inconsistent and contradictory sources".
The International Grimes Tribunal-1 on October 3, 2011 mentioned the figures in its indictment order in the case against Sayedee.
During yesterday's hearing, Bergman's lawyer Mustafizur Rahman Khan said one of the articles written by his client was posted around two and a half years ago, but no one, including the prosecutors and investigators, batted an eyelid before the filing of the petition.
Besides, the petitioner did not specifically mention which part of the article was contemptuous, said Mustafiz, adding that his client had written the article for 'fair criticism" and it was not tantamount to "contempt".
The intention of Bergman's writeups was to assist the court, he claimed.
Sara Hossain, another counsel of Bergman, said her client had made a documentary in the 1990s on three war crimes suspects living in the UK, which had been used as evidence in a war crimes case.
Bergman had come to Bangladesh and made the documentary, at risk to his life, thus demonstrating his respect for the martyrs of the Liberation War, she added.
But Justice Hassan said: "Why have you [Bergman] asked a question about the historically established fact [the number of martyrs]? Didn't you have any books other than the ones you have used for references?"
Justice Shahinur Islam said: "It's apparently understood that you wrote |the article] to create a controversy."
As Bergman had carried out "many researches" on the Liberation War as mentioned by his defence, why didn't he take up the issue earlier, he asked.
"Why did he select this time [November 20111 when several cases were
pending with the tribunals?" he questioned.
Mustafiz argued that his client did not say the three million deaths were false but said the tribunal did not cite sources in mentioning the figures. Bergman mentioned several references, which contradicted those figures, Mustafiz added.
Justice Mozibur Rahman said the subsequent judgment of the tribunals mentioned sources about the three million deaths. "Why didn't you then withdraw the article from your blog?" he questioned.
"Do all the books that contradict the three million figures have to be withdrawn?" asked Mustafiz.
Justice Hassan said there might be a debate over the death figures, but "how are you [Bergman] assisting the court by creating a debate over a settled issue?"
As the court mentioned a part of the article, Mustafiz said his client had withdrawn it from his article after getting the notice.
The lawyer further said that raising questions over the death figure might have hurt the emotions of the people, including the petitioner, and "I respect that emotion".
"But the question is whether it was contemptuous or not. We think it was not contemptuous, " he added.
When the court asked Mustafiz if his client was respectful to emotions as he was, Mustafiz replied: "Obviously."
Mizan Syeed, lawyer for petitioner Abul Kalam Azad, said the tribunal had the right to take any historical matter into judicial notice and it had taken the death figure in judicial notice while passing the order.
Raising a question over the death figure "couldn't be fair criticism" but it had "demeaned" the dignity of the tribunal and "it was contemptuous," he said.
Mizan added Bergman had termed the tribunal a rubber stamp and also said the tribunal had delivered "predetermined judgement". "Isn't it contemptuous?" asked Mizan.
M Anamul Kabir Emon assisted Mizan.