& 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

Comments on Judiciary

War tribunal warns HRW

Staff Correspondent
The Human Rights Watch has committed the "worst kind of contempt” by making comments without having adequate knowledge of facts, ruled International Crimes Tribunal-1 yesterday issuing a warning against HRW.
The tribunal was lenient on the global rights watchdog as it was its first offence and asked it to be more "circumspect" in making comments about Bangladesh's judiciary.
Disposing of a contempt petition, the tribunal said the HRW had made contemptuous remarks in their official website regarding the judges and the authority of the tribunal in the name of freedom of speech and expression.
The tribunal has the power to award highest one year imprisonment or up to Tk 5,000 in fines or both in case of contempt but in this case it issued only a warning.
A month after the conviction of former Jamaat chief Ghulam Azam, considered by many as the symbol of war crimes in Bangladesh, the HRW on August 16, 2013, published an article titled "Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on Flawed Proceedings".
The prosecution brought contempt petition against HRW, its Asia Director Brad Adams and associate for HRW Asia Division Storm Tiv for allegedly demeaning the tribunal and its judges.
"On scrutiny of the dossier presented by the parties concerned [prosecution and defence], the issue |HRW report] in hands is found to be contemptuous against the opposite parties", said the tribunal in its 43-page order.
"Yes, in the case in hands judges have ample power to exercise their authority upon the opposite parties in accordance with law as it has been proven that the opposite parties made contemptuous remarks in their official website regarding the judges as well as authority of the tribunal in the name of freedom of speech and expression," the order read.
"People like opposite parties ]HRW| in a civilised society got no mandate to exceed the limit of law," the tribunal said.
"We are expecting more circumspection, understanding, discretion and judgement on the part of the opposite parties [HRW] because they are strongly claiming that they speak on behalf of the distressed and oppressed people and of their fundamental rights," said tribunal member Justice Jahangir Hossain Selim reading out the rule.
He said, "The instant contempt petition is disposed of with a note of desire that upon realising mistakes as narrated above the opposite parties shall be more careful, cautious and respectful in making any statement or comment with regard to the judicial
proceedings or the judges of the tribunals or any other courts of Bangladesh in future."
The tribunal had served a showcause notice upon HRW and it apologised for any inadvertent mistake it had made in its report on the verdict.
The tribunal said the defendants were non-residents of Bangladesh and lacked the knowledge about the contempt law and proceedings in Bangladesh. They did not know how their comments would be perceived in Bangladesh.
The HRW, in their response to the show-cause notice, 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.
Justice Jahangir Hossain said in Ghulam Azam's case the tribunal had given ample opportunities to both the parties especially the defence to produce or defend their respective cases properly in order to ensure fair trial so that none of the parties could be deprived of getting redress or justice.
The tribunal further said all the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length by the defence with full satisfaction. More so, the tribunal, for ensuring fair justice, allowed 12 defence witnesses to depose in favour of Ghulam Azam on the basis of defence prayer but the defence willingly tendered only one witness.
To defend himself, the accused had received all the procedural benefits. It was not correct to say that the trial of Azam's case had not ended in accordance with the law, the order read.