& 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

Contempt of Tribunal

HRW says sorry to ICT

Staff Correspondent
The Human Rights Watch has apologised to the International Crimes Tribunal-1 for any inadvertent mistake it had made in its August 16, 2013, report on the verdict of former Jamaat chief Ghulam Azam.
However, the New Yorkbased rights body said the publication and the American nationals who wrote it were under the jurisdiction of US laws and they were beyond the tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.
On behalf of HRW, counsellor Asaduzzaman made the submission before the tribunal following the prosecution plea to initiate contempt proceeding
FROM PAGE 16
against the rights body, its Asia Director Brad Adams and associate for HRW Asia Division StormTiv.
The Tribunal-1 would decide whether the contempt proceedings would be initiated against HRW on July 15.
On July 15,2013, Tribunal-1 awarded Ghulam Azam 90 years' jail finding him guilty in all five charges of crimes against humanity and genocide committed during the Liberation War.
The prosecution filed the contempt petition after HRW posted an article on its website claiming that the trial of the former Jamaat ameer was "deeply flawed" and "had not met internationalstandards".
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".
The HRW's reply reads: The tribunal does not have the jurisdiction and authority to initiate this contempt proceeding against the opposite parties who are American nationals and are subjected to the jurisdiction of American law in respect of the alleged publication which was published in the official website of the HRW from the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of America.
Hence, the publication was made beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal and therefore the contempt proceeding against them is liable to be dismissed, the reply said.
The HRW claimed that it had reported certain issues which merely compared the ingredients of a "fair trial" with international instruments and that there was no malice or criminal intent.
It said the question of showing disrespect and disregard for the tribunal and its judges by them was not only misconceived but also a motivated step taken by the chief prosecutor and its team.
‘The opposite parties, being the nonresidents of Bangladesh, did not have any knowledge about the contempt law and proceeding of Bangladesh and lack the perspective to accurately assess whether their sincerely offered comments on the trial would be perceived in Bangladesh as expressing a disregard, which in no way was intended and as such they may be exonerated for those lack of knowledge, ” said the reply.
Prosecutor Tureen Afroz said since the report spread through the internet to this country, it was under the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
“Even if it was published in USA only, the tribunal could take action against HRW on the basis of passive nationality and protective jurisdiction," she added.
Terming the report's allegations baseless and biased, the prosecutor said, "It has seriously damaged the dignity of the tribunal before the world. ”
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 subject to political influence.
Another prosecutor Tapas Kanti Baul said, "The Human Rights Watch has been vehemently criticised worldwide for its motivated activities as a rights organisation.”
If proved, the accused would have to serve one year in jail or pay Tk 5,000 as fine or suffer both.