MOHAMMED ASHRAFUL BARI

The International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973 did not contain any provision regarding compensation for victims. The sentence, as outlined in section 20 of the Act, only prescribed death or other form of punishment, with no mention of compensation to the victims. The International Crimes Tribunal (Amendment) Ordinance 2024, promulgated last November, marks the beginning of a new chapter in the legal landscape of new Bangladesh.

Notably, as per the newly added section 20A of the International Crimes Tribunal Act inserted by section 17 of the 2024 amendment, the tribunal is authorised to impose on the perpetrators compensation amount as they deem suitable. Such compensation is to be recovered from the perpetrators, from their current assets, or when both are missing, any assets they may acquire in future.

The fundamental transformation of International Crimes Tribunal regarding its criminal justice approach deserves praise for several justifiable reasons. First, victim’s right to compensation, in conjunction with rights to protection, participation, and rehabilitation, forms the foundation of a just and fair redressal mechanism. The criminal Justice system of Bangladesh has failed to acknowledge the critical importance of these rights for long. Insertion of such compensatory provision sets a legislative good practice example. Second, compared to administrative assistance of monetary nature, judicial compensation is preferable due to its personal, holistic, and preventive nature.

Third, by providing compensation to the victims of international crimes ensures that the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh is in harmony with recent evolution of compensatory mechanism observed across several other international crimes trials. For instance, International Criminal Tribunals of Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) had supported the rights of the victims to be compensated. Moreover, global documents, such as 1998’s Rome Statute (Article 75) and Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crime against Humanity 2019 (Article 12), also recognise victim’s rights to obtain compensation. In line with such development, in February 2024, a record-breaking number of 49,772 victims were awarded with collective reparation of more than 52 million Euro by the International Criminal Court in Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen .

Finally, provision regarding victim’s compensation is crucial to ensure the Tribunal adopts a victim-centric approach. In the past, lack of such an approach, among others, has had a negative impact on the tribunal, leading to loss of credibility and reducing it as a state apparatus aimed at political persecution.

Inclusion of provision regarding victim’s compensation, though commendable for the aforementioned reasons, is not without shortcomings. The notion of reparation in the legislation centers only on victim’s right to compensation, entirely neglecting the necessity to rehabilitate the victims of July. It is not only the short-term financial restitution that is required, but also the long-term aid intended for rehabilitation of the victims that is necessary.

Another drawback is that section 20A of the Act fails to put in place a formal mechanism to manage the extensive undertaking of disbursing the compensation funds to the victims. Previous mechanisms, including Trust Funds for Victims of International Criminal Court and Victim Support Section of Khmer Rouge Tribunal, have demonstrated successful models of achieving such tasks.

In conclusion, although incorporating a more contemporary approach within the International Crimes Tribunal is advantageous, its execution is not just imperative, but essential for meaningful redressal for the victims of July Revolution. To ensure the realisation of such progress, it is the concerned stakeholders of criminal justice system who have the responsibility to take proactive steps.

The writer is Intern at Bangladesh Legal Aid & Services Trust (BLAST).