***********************

The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 [Act No XIX of 1973]. Dhaka: Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 1973.

Abstract: This is the 1973 act as modified up to July 2009.

Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice determining Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo. International Court of Justice, 2010.

Abstract: Kosovo’s unilateral secession from Serbia in 2008 did not violate international law, the World Court said on Thursday in a decision with implications for separatist movements everywhere, rules ICJ. The non-binding, but clear-cut ruling by the International Court of Justice is a major blow to Serbia and will complicate efforts to draw the former pariah ex-Yugoslav republic into the European Union. It is likely to lead to more states following the United States, Britain and 67 other countries in recognising ethnic-Albanian dominated Kosovo, which broke away after NATO intervened to end a brutal crackdown on separatism by Belgrade. It may also embolden breakaway regions in countries ranging from India and Iraq to Serbia’s war-torn neighbour and fellow former Yugoslav republic Bosnia to seek more autonomy. “The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence,” Judge Hisashi Owada, president of the ICJ, said in the clear majority ruling delivered in a cavernous hall at the Hague-based ICJ. Accordingly, it concludes that “the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law.”

International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2010. Dhaka: Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2010.

Abstract: Detailed rules of procedure for the international crimes tribunal of Bangladesh.

আরেফিন, এ এস এম সামছুল, ed. মুক্তিযুদ্ধ ‘৭১: দালাল আইনে সাজাপ্রাপ্ত যুদ্ধাপরাধী. Bangladesh Research and Publications, 2008, Dhaka.

Abstract: This book is a collection of some of the early trials against the collaborators held under the Collaborators’ Ordinance.

***********************

Sadat, Leila Nadya. Unpacking the Complexities of International Criminal Tribunal Jurisdiction. Faculty Research Paper Series (Paper no. 10-03-13). Washington University in St. Louis, 2010.

Abstract: The paper discusses the factors that determine jurisdiction in international courts with focus on international crimes. These factors include a) the subject matter jurisdiction of the court or tribunal (that is, whether crimes under international law have been committed, particularly during war time); b)whether the territorial state is unable or unwilling to exercise jurisdiction; c) whether the United Nations, and particularly, the Security Council, has intervened because the crimes alleged to have been committed pose a threat to international peace and security, and either the Security Council has invoked its Chapter VII powers (possible primacy jurisdiction), or no State is able or willing to exercise its criminal jurisdiction (complementarity); and finally, d) how grave and/or serious the crimes are and whether the perpetrators are leaders (who may have special responsibilities under international law) or lower-level accused etc.

Ratner, S R. “Belgium’s War Crimes Statute: A Postmortem.” American Journal of International Law. 97.4 (2003): 888-897.

Abstract: The life and death of Belgium’s universal jurisdiction law is a textbook case of the intersection of law and power in the international arena. A government, its consciousness raised by the increased global attention to individual responsibility for human rights atrocities, enacts a broad statute opening its courts to prosecutions of suspected murderers, torturers, and war criminals around the world. Stung by its peacekeepers’ failure to prevent genocide in Rwanda, a former colony, Belgium eventually utilizes the law to try and convict a handful of accomplices to those atrocities.

Cassese, A. “Reflections on International Criminal Justice.” Modern Law Review. 61.1 (1998): 1-10.

Abstract: Judge Cassese presents arguments in favour of the use of international courts in order to punish war crimes. He argues that the application of justice through a court is better in certain circumstances than amnesties. He examines the merits of international courts rather than national courts, but acknowledges that at present there are several major stumbling blocks to an effective international criminal justice system.

April, N. “An Inquiry into the Judicial Basis for the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial.” Minn. L. Rev. 30.5 (1946): 311-319.

Abstract: The author examines:
I. The juridical basis for the existence of the Nurenbeg War Crime tribunal;
II. The validity of the commission held by the members of the IMT:
III. The sufficiency of the indictment to charge a juridically cognizable offense.

***********************

Jones, A. “Does ‘Gender’ Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations.” Review of International Studies. 22.4 (1996): 405-429.

Abstract: In the light if the three essential features of feminism, the author tries to provide an overview of some major contributions and features if feminist IR thinking, with particular attention to the problem of war and peace.

Copelon, R. “Gender Crimes as War Crimes: Integrating Crimes against Women into International Criminal Law.” McGill L. J.. 49 (2001): 217-240.

Abstract: The author identifies the major goals and achievements in the area of recognizing women as full subjects of human rights and eliminating impunity for gender crimes, highlighting the role of nongovernmental organizations (“NGO’s”). Until the 1990s sexual violence in war was largely invisible, a point illustrated by examples of the “comfort women” in Japan during the 1930s and 1940s and the initial failure to prosecute rape and sexual violence in the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Due in a significant measure to the interventions by NGOs, the ad hoc international criminal tribunals have brought gender into mainstream international jurisprudence. For example, the Yugoslavia tribunal has devoted substantial resources to the prosecution of rape and explicitly recognized rape as torture, while the Rwanda tribunal has recognized rape as an act of genocide. Elsewhere, the Statute of the International Criminal Court is a landmark in codifying not only crimes of sexual and gender violence as part of the ICC’s jurisdiction, but also in establishing procedures to ensure that these crimes and their victims are properly treated. Working towards this end the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice met with significant opposition. It persisted because of the imperative that sexual violence be seen as part of already recognized forms of violence, such as torture and genocide.

Jones, A. “Gendercide and Genocide.” Journal of Genocide Research. 2.2 (2000): 185-211.

Abstract: The article seeks to place such acts of “gendercide” in comparative and global-historical perspective. It argues that gendercide—inclusively defined as gender-selective mass killing—is a frequent and often defining feature of human conflict and perhaps of human social organization, extending back to antiquity.

Burke, S M. “The Postwar Diplomacy of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.” Asian Survey. 13.11 (1973): 1036-1049.

Abstract: This is a letter from Brad Adams, Executive Director, Asia Division of Human Rights Watch regarding the trial of war criminals under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, as amended in 2009.

War Crimes Committee of the International Bar Association. Consistency of Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 with International Standards., 2009.

Abstract: This is a legislative review prepared by IBA-WCC on request from UK All Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group of Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 as amended in 2009.

***********************

Meron, Theodor. “From Nuremberg to the Hague.” Military Law Review. 149 (1995): 107-112.

Abstract: The author challenges the commonly used reference to Nuremberg as “victors’ court” as that would imply an arbitrary tribunal. He argues, despite certain shortcomings of due process rules, Nuremberg was neither arbitrary nor unjust. Victors sitting in judgement at Nuremberg did not necessarily corrupt the essential fairness in proceedings.

Vittal, Nalini. “Tribulation before Trial in Cambodia: Confronting Autogenocide.” Economic and Political Weekly. 36.3 (2001): 199-203.

Abstract: The human, political and economic catastrophe Cambodia witnessed during the Khmer Rouge years continues to haunt the country. Even as the trial of the former leaders of Khmer Rouge awaits royal assent, the controversy over bringing the criminals to book remains mired in political wrangles, legal concerns, divisions among the survivors and new interventions by the UN and foreign governments. The saga of the trials also exposes the value, perversions and uncertainties that accompany retrospective justice for mass murder.

Paust, Jordan J. “The International Criminal Court Does Not Have Complete Jurisdiction Over Customary Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes.” John Marshall Law Review. 43 (2010).

Abstract: The International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction over all international crimes and it is understood that definitions or lists of crimes that are within the jurisdiction of the ICC are not meant to be exclusive or to limit in any way the customary definitions of crimes against humanity and war crimes or the reach more generally of customary international law. Parts II and III of this article provide significant detail with respect to differences between crimes against humanity and war crimes covered under the Statute of the ICC and those covered under the broader reach of customary international law. These differences are important for several reasons. For example, if future efforts are made to create a general or regional multilateral treaty proscribing crimes against humanity, the significant limits with respect to crimes against humanity set forth in Article 7 of the Statute of the ICC should not simply be copied. The same point pertains with respect to national legislation that attempts to cover all crimes against humanity and/or all war crimes under dynamic customary international law.

Akhavan, Payam. “Justice in the Hague, Peace in the Former Yugoslavia? A Commentary on the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal.” Human Rights Quarterly. 20.4 (1998): 737-816.

Abstract: This article discusses about the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yogoslavia (ICTY), the role of United Nations regarding war crime.

Linton, Suzannah. “Completing the Circle: Accountability for the Crimes of the 1971 Bangladesh War of Liberation.” Criminal Law Forum (2010).

Abstract: There are many policy issues that need to be considered when a country and its people start to deal with horrors that are 39 years old. The trial process is a critical part of that, but it is not the only issue to deal with. It is essential for Bangladesh to develop a comprehensive, coherent and principled strategy for dealing with its past. It has not done that yet. The country is at a critical juncture, and it falls on the government to seize the opportunity to make the most of a process of accountability. Any trial process, especially of such a charged matter as the crimes of the liberation war, must meet international standards in order to have any legitimacy, honour the victims and provide some kind of redress to survivors. But that is not enough. After 38 years, the damage to the fabric of society is immense, and a properly conducted trial process opens a window of opportunity to repair some of the harm. The government must respond appropriately. The purpose of this paper is not to address the important wider issues of how Bangladesh should deal with the legacies of its past, rather to focus on the key legal issues arising out of the Awami League government’s avowed determination to investigate, prosecute and punish alleged criminals under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 As Amended.

Wald, P M. “Dealing with Witnesses in War Crime Trials: Lessons from the Yugoslav Tribunal.” Yale Hum. Rts. & Dev. L.J.. 5 (2002): 217-240.

Abstract: The conflict between the right of an accused to a public trial and the exceptional pressures on victim witnesses of war crimes in omnipresent in ICTY trials. Recently ICTY has begun to favor witness protection. These overly liberal grants of witness protection measures, including heavy reliance on affidavits over live testimony, closed sessions, face and voice distortion, and even pseudonyms, threaten the goals of the tribunal- to provide accurate historical records of terrible events and fair treatment accused war criminals.

Dembour, M B, and E Haslam. “Silencing Hearings? VIctim-Witnesses ar War Crimes Trials.” European Journal of International Law. 15.1 (2004): 151(27).

Abstract: It is commonly accepted that war crime trials should provide a space for victims to tell their stories. However, ICTY trials suggests that war crime trials effectively silence, rather than hear the victims. The authors argue that incongruously optimistic judicial remarks unnecessarily denied their suffering. This article seeks to identify both the demands that the legal process imposes on victim-witnesses and the tensions that arises out of their participation in it. In the light of the fact that legal proceedings cannot produce the definitive collective memory of the events with which they deal, the article stresses the need to foster a variety of collective memories outside the judicial platform.

Afroz, Tureen. “Let There be Light: Commentary on IBA Fatwas.” Genocide, War Crimes & Crimes against Humanity in Bangladesh: Trial Under International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973. Ed. Tureen Afroz. Dhaka: Forum for Secular Bangladesh and Trial of War Criminals of 1971, 2010. 162.

Golam Azam, the ex-Amir and one of the notorious alleged war criminals of Liberation War is trying to secretly flee from Bangladesh. All legal procedures have been adopted to avail a British visa for the ex-Amir. As soon as he reaches London, Azam is likely to apply for political asylum, sources suspect. A reliable source observes that the immigration of Golam Azam is being monitored under tough secretiveness. It became known, the whole matter is being monitored by Azam’s son Nabil Azmi, who is currently living in London. Even the policymakers of Jamayat E Islami was kept unaware of this move. The source further discloses, the process of migration was initiated by his family members during the two-year regime of the Caretaker Government when the demand for the trial of the war criminals was gathering momentum. Subsequently, Awami League’s election victory on the key pledge to try the war criminals, prompted action on the part of Azam’s family members to explore the feasibility of a possible political asylum in England for him.

Azam applied for visa before the British High Commission in Bangladesh on 28 April 2008. The process was handled in secrecy with application materials being sent through a courier. Later, Azam dropped in on at the Visa Facilitation Center (VFS) of British High Commission located at Gulshan-1 for his biometric scans (finger prints). Secrecy was strictly maintained during this visit to VFS as well. VFS of British High Commission is run by a private organization. When the application was initially refused by BHC in Dhaka, an appeal was filed by Nabil Azmi before the ‘Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’ in the UK. After Awami League’s victory in the last General Election, Azam re-applied for British visa which too was refused, followed by Nabil Azmi’s appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. This time, in order to ensure a favourable result, a Pakistani individual and a number of pro-Jamayat immigration advisers were involved in the process. Following legal representations, at the beginning of April, the immigration Judge issued instructions to the British High Commission in Dhaka to provide Azam with a UK visa enabling him to meet his family members. A responsible insider source of London disclosed, a copy of the order was sent to the British High Commission in Dhaka, to facilitate the process. According to this anonymous source, all loose ends are going to be tied up for a smooth immigration of Azam as a number of insiders currently active in the present administration are working on the case.  The source also confirmed that the passport of Azam, which was expired in July, 2009, had been renewed hastily without any hindrance or intervention from the Bangladesh Government.

Mohammed Golam Kibria, a young immigration lawyer from London, informed this reporter, “After the appeal, Golam Azam will no longer face any difficulty in obtaining his UK visa.” Kibria commented, “He might have availed his visa by now. As far as we know, no one in the Bangladesh High Commission is aware of Nabil Azmi’s appeals in UK Court. No alerts have been issued to the concerned bodies regarding the activities of the suspected war criminals. If Golam Azam arrives in London, it will be an easy matter for his family to keep him in UK. If he applies for political asylum his application will be dealt with importance according to the law of this country. Generally, in this country, if a septuagenarian applies for political asylum, her/his application is accepted on humanitarian grounds.”

When Nabil Azmi was contacted on his cell phone in London from the Kaler Kantha office at 7.44 pm, 20 June, an unknown person introduced himself as uncle of Nabil Azmi and wanted to know about the subject of the report from the reporter. When the reporter expressed his desire to talk to Nabil Azmi, he was told that Nabil was preoccupied. When the person spoken to was asked about his identification, he then introduced himself as Salman Azmi, the younger son of Golam Azam. Being queried about Golam Azam’s immigration, he at first denied to give any information. Later on he demanded that, as British High Commission of Bangladesh refused the visa of Golam Azam totally illegally, their family appealed in London and they succeeded two months ago. He also informed that, due to the result of the appeal, British High Commission called for the passport of Golam Azam which was handed over to them. He, however, had no idea as to whether the visa had finally issued on the passport.

Sushanta Dasgupta, one of the activists engaged in mobilizing public opinion in London for the trial of war criminals and CEO of AmarBlog.com, informs this reporter, “four sons of Golam Azam reside in London. They maintain close relationship with the local Jamayat leaders as well as with the international lobbies. We are worried that if Golam Azam can somehow can leave Bangladesh and reach here, he can never be sent back to Bangladesh to face trial.”

Meanwhile the source from London ensured that, if Golam Azam can reach England after ensuring visa, then his permanent settlement over there will be processed by his another son Amin al Azmi by a formal application. Both general immigration rules related to uniting father with his son and solicitation for political asylum have been scrutinized carefully. They think that, if solicitation for political asylum is lodged, then the other convicted leaders of Jamayat E Islami who may be framed in the charge of war crime may also achieve ‘political soft corner’ from all over the world in future. The source also confirmed that, Amin al Azmi had already met several immigration lawyers by this time. Golam Azam has, on several occasions in the past, attended political programmes in London which were organized Amin al Azmi.

In this context, Major General (Rtd.) Shafiullah Bir Uttam, Senior Vice Chairman of Sector Commanders’ Forum told the Kaler Kantha, “Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib promulgated Collaborator’s Act upon his return to Bangladesh on 10th January, 1972. Attempts were made to arrest all the prominent (alleged) war criminals under that law, including Golam Azam who evaded arrest by escaping to foreign countries. All the well known war criminals like Golam Azam should be brought to government custody, mere sending of alerts to entry and exit points/ports is not sufficient to prevent escape of these war criminals from the country. A list of those war criminals should also be sent to all the foreign embassies/high commissions, so that no one is afforded a visa.”

On hearing the emigration effort of Golam Azam, the Convener of War Crimes Fact Finding Committee Dr. M A Hasan expressed dissatisfaction. He said, “Our friendly countries can never give visa to these branded war criminals. The UK and the countries of EU have all ratified Geneva Convention and Genocide Convention. They can, in no way, give visa to a war criminal.”

He said, “Golam Azam is one the topmost war criminals. If he can manage his escape route somehow, then the trial of the war criminals will turn into a farce. In 1971, on allowing the exit of Pakistani military war criminals from Bangladesh turned out to be an ultimate fiasco in their trial. If Golam Azam can move outside Bangladesh, then his trial will never be possible.”

He demanded that the government confiscates the passports of all the marked war criminals.

Dear Lord Avebury,

A little while ago we received a copy of the press statement issued by you. The statement is in direct reference to the All Parliamentary Human Rights Group Seminar held on the 23rd June Wednesday (see here).

Before we go into the anomalies in your statement, let us clarify a few things first on our part. For the record, we are still of the position that discussions that can improve the trial process in any manner is essential and should be welcome. Because, our collective goal is not only to facilitate this long overdue justice process, but also to ensure that it takes place in a credible and sustainable manner, for the sake of justice. Therefore, we feel that this All Party Parliamentary Group’s seminar presented an opportunity which could have been used to bring on board all the parties who are sincere about the trial. Unfortunately, dear Lord Avebury, your decision – to go ahead with the Seminar with a dubious entity disregarding the concerns expressed, and even as far as opting to take this entity’s aid in organising the event – demonstrates poor judgement on your part at the least, if not anything diabolical. It has now become a missed opportunity, and perhaps, made these discussions much more difficult to take place in future, since IBA (ie, International Bar Association – War Crimes Committee) too is now considered to have compromised its independence by attending this dubious seminar organised by a political lobby that represents the war criminals. We, who care about 1971 and the victims of war crimes, hold you personally responsible for harming the possibility of dialogue.

Some of the highlights of your statement include:

1. At the request of the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group (PHRG), the War Crimes Committee of the International Bar Association (IBA) is examining/evaluating the legislations under which the government of Bangladesh intends to hold trials of persons accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the war of independence in 1971

2. Which does not necessarily undermine or downplay the severity of the war crimes committed in Bangladesh. Rather the evaluation merely tries to ascertain the fact that no objection to the proceedings would be likely to arise on the grounds that the 1973 Act was not in conformity with developments in the legal standards developed over the last 37 years.

3. At the end of 2009 the War Crimes Committee reported its findings to the PHRG, and after internal consideration, the report was sent to the Bangladesh High Commissioner under cover of a letter from the Chair of the PHRG, Ms Ann Clwyd, requesting that it be transmitted to relevant Ministers in Bangladesh, and asking for their comments.

4. A seminar was held on June 24 in Committee Room 3 of the House of Lords to discuss the IBA report, and the High Commissioner of Bangladesh to the UK sent his government’s comments on June 21 (see here for details). He was unable to attend the seminar or send a representative.

5. Among the main speakers of the seminar was Khandker Mahbub Hossain, President of Supreme Court Bar Association of Bangladesh.

6. The representatives of the IBA reiterated that they would be ready to give detailed advice to the government of Bangladesh on how the legislation could be amended so as to comply with recent norms of international law, in line with models such as the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda, and national tribunals such as those in East Timor and Sierra Leone.

7. Lord Avebury undertook to convey this offer of a dialogue to the authorities in Bangladesh

Now, dear Lord Avebury, please read and listen carefully what we have to say:

1. This is not the first time Bangladesh is preparing to try its war criminals. In 1972, the newly independent nation initiated proceedings to try the alleged war criminals of 1971. These proceedings were held under the “Collaborators Act”. There was no question about the standard of that particular legislation. The other piece of legislation was the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act of 1973, aimed at trying the Pakistani soldiers and the members of different auxiliary forces who were involved in the commission of ‘international crimes’. None of the legislations were criticised at the time. Rather, it was the 1973 Act which was lauded internationally because of its high standards. The military coup of 15 August, 1975 brought over a new government abruptly ending all the pending proceedings and releasing even the convicted ones. Although Collaborators Act and the tribunals under it had been cancelled, the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973 remained effective. The forces who intended to revert the history of independence through that military coup of 1975, and their followers who later claimed power in Bangladesh, never tried to amend the legislation, neither did they raise any objection about its ’standards’. Interestingly, they have begun to raise these objections only recently, realising that there may after all be a prosecution. If you follow the ways in which politics in Bangladesh worked you would see that the people who are now lobbying internationally to discredit the trial-initiatives, are the very same people who had put an end to the earlier proceedings back in the days. Perhaps they didn’t account for the fact that someday, the Bangladeshi people would be vocal about these crimes against humanity. Had they known this day is ahead of them, they would have found a way to repeal that legislation themselves. That would have saved you the trouble of arranging this farcical pretention of a seminar.

2. However, those of us who are working hard to get the perpetrators of the crimes get a proper trial are not opposed to discussing this legislation, or improving it, if that can be done within a realistic time frame prioritising the trial. We believe the government of Bangladesh expressed similar interest and even went as far as to amend the legislation in 2009. The government has also ratified the Rome Statute, a feat unmatched by many other “democratic” countries. If there indeed are legitimate doubts about the legislation, then Bangladesh has a proper democratic environment to facilitate those claims. However, this very process becomes a farce when indiduals representing certain quarters (namely, the war criminal lobbies) manipulate the process by getting involved under false pretenses. It must be noted, the people who are using the 1973 Tribunal Act as a shield to postpone or even derail the proceedings have their own representatives in the parliament. Interestingly, they never raised these concerns inside the Parliament. And not once, during all these years! We cannot help ask you one question: who do you think have the bonafide standing to evaluate (or re-evaluate) the law that, for example, is aimed at prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes against humankind in Rwanda? Those who themselves were the perpetrators and their collaborators? Or, it should be those who were actually the victims of these crimes? What would have been your response if some neo-Nazi groups demanded evaluation of the trial of the Nazis?

3. Your statement notes – the Bangladesh Cigh Commissioner in the UK has handed over a reasoned opinion from the government of Bangladesh with regard to the legislative review of IBA. However, we still do not know your exact position on that. Until you disclose that precisely, we are at the fence about your promise to help ‘amend the legislation’.

4. Your statement implies that it was PHRG who arranged the seminar to discuss IBA’s findings. The facts, however, suggest something else (see here and here). An organization in the name of Justice Concern was behind arranging this seminar and later amid protests from different organizations like War Crimes Strategy Forum and London Lawyers’ Forum removed their name out of the equation, on paper at least. During the question-answer session, you have admitted about JusticeConcern’s financial involvement in arranging the event, in addition to the ‘clerical support’ which you have purportedly received from them. Interestingly, none of these crucial facts made their way into your statement. There were clear indications that some of the speakers and attendees in the seminar were individuals who are directly affiliated with Jamaat-e-Islami/BNP politics, the political lobby that has always been reluctant and even resistant to the war crime trial issue. You had been duly notified about that by WCSF and London Lawyers’ Forum, not once, twice. Let us remind you, this Jamat e-Islami is the very same political party which in 1971 encouraged its leaders and followers to participate, commit and assist in war-crimes alongside the invading Pakistani army. It should not surprise anyone that they are now trying to find faults with the legislation or the trial process, at times even equipped by well-meaning legislative reviews conducted by bodies like IBA. Their objectives are obvious – to delay, discredit, and if possible to prevent the trial from happening and let the perpetrators get away in the name of ‘due process’ and ‘human rights’. We are aware that a journalist present in the event inquired about these concerns while the seminar was in session, and you tried to downplay the participation of Justice Concern, and also failed to provide a satisfactory reply as to who actually sponsored/funded the event. This surprised us and we are yet to receive a satisfactory response from you on the matter, which we believe, you owe to the people of Bangladesh who have been seeking justice for 39 long years.

5. The speakers of the seminar include Khandker Mahbub Hossain, President of Supreme Court Bar Association of Bangladesh. In his usual media statements, he often tries to give the impression that – he is not against the war crimes tribunal and all he wants is that the legislation be of international standard. Let us inform you – incidentally, Mr. Hossain was in New York a while ago and there he had tried to gather support against trying the war-criminals and even went as far as boldly asserting that “there are no war-criminals in Bangladesh”. So, please forgive us when we consider this entire seminar a farcical nonsense when luminary speakers of such devious stance on this matter are invited as experts to evaluate the legislation aimed (according to Mr Mahbub Hossain) apparently to try some “non-existent war-criminals”. We really do not have the time to entertain such nonsense and we believe, neither do you, dear Sir.

6. Another piece of information about the current President of Supreme Court Bar Association of Bangladesh may interest you given that he is an active member of BNP. You should know that in December 2009, BNP (ie, the major ally of Jamat e-Islami) has amended its Party Constitution altering one of its founding principles. The aim of this amendment was to remove the existing membership bar that prevented suspected/alleged war criminals from joining the party. Therefore, by association, Khandakar Mahbub Hossain is not someone who can be trusted and his motive is questionable at the very least.

7. The way in which you are trying to protect Justice Concern despite wide scale protests and concerns by many involved, forces us to rethink your neutrality in this situation.

When there is so little transparency in what you say or do, can you really blame us for being suspicious of the manner in which you have handled the issue of discussion on the 1973 Act? The ball is now in your court, Mr Avebury. We would vigilantly observe how you explain yourself.

London: 22 June.

An attempt to make the ongoing trial of war criminals in Bangladesh questionable in international arena has been wasted. One makeshift organisation called ‘Justice Concern’ tried to arrange this with the help of All-party Parliamentary Human Rights Group (APPGHR) of UK. The role of Lord Eric Avebury, the vice Chairman of APPGHR has also been questioned by different quarters.

It may be mentioned here that Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, the protectors of some alleged Bangladeshi war criminals have been lobbying in the international arena, especially in the UK and USA, under different banners to stop the trial of war criminals. Justice Concern is one such organisation, which was unheard in UK till-to-date.

Justice Concern used All-party Parliamentary Human Rights Group (APPGHR) to take steps to make the ongoing trial of war criminals in Bangladesh questionable. They achieved preliminary success on this as on 23^rd of June they arranged a seminar in the House Of Lords titled “Bangladesh’s International Crime (Tribunal) Act 1973: Quality Of International Trial”. The activities of ‘Justice Concern’ (JC) was to make a buzz about this seminar and ensure presence of the representatives of the Bangladesh Government. Not only JC failed in that but it was also exposed that they have close ties with Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh. Many Bangladeshi expatriates in UK have raised concerns about this APPGHR seminar.

Meanwhile, we tried to contact them via the telephone number available for RSVP on the seminar and we have succeeded on the 21^st of June. The phone call was received by Barrister Ashaduzzaman Fuad., the convenor of JC. Talking about the seminar he mentioned that JC is not involved with the arrangement of this seminar and APPGHR is solely responsible.

After that we contacted the APPGHR office and one employee informed us that according to his knowledge APPGHR is not involved in such an event. However one of the organisers of War Crimes Strategy Forum (WCSF) confirmed that Lord Avebury had invited them to be present in that seminar. But they cited evidences of involvement of Jamaat-e-Islami in this seminar and refused to attend.

It has been learnt that although the invitations for the seminar went out in the name of APPGHR, the contact telephone number available is of one persons whose sympathies, based on his other organisational affiliations, evidently lies with Jammat-e-Islami politics. After confirming this information some WCSF activists in UK tried to dig deep. They contacted experts and other human rights activities in the field to learn more about the organisation (Justice Concern) and its affiliations. They found out that the domain has been registered in the name of Kamal Sikder, the Executive Editor of weekly Eurobangla magazin, who is affiliated with Jamaat. Kamal Sikder was in the executive committee of Bangladesh Islami Chattra Shibir, the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami. His home address was used to register the domain. The contact us and about us pages of the site is not open for public. Barrister Ashaduzzaman Fuad, the coordinator, was involved with Bangladesh Islami Chattra Shibir’s politics when he was studying in Dhaka university. He became the executive editor of Bangladesh Forum Of Europe (BFE) after coming to UK. BFE is regarded as the flagship organisation of Bangladesh Islami Chattra Shibir cadres in UK. Jamaat leaders like Matiur Rahman Nizami have previously attended in their programs in UK. Moreover BFE has been accused of having ties with the radical IFE (Islamic Forum of Europe – IFE). One of the co-founders of IFE is the alleged Bangladeshi war criminal Chowdhury Mueenuddin, who had been accused of killing intellectuals during the 1971 liberation war of Bangladesh. [See here and here, for details]

It has been learnt that certain misguided information were used to ensure presence of the representatives of the Bangladesh Government. The Jamaat lobbyists publicised that many representatives of International Bar Association will be present, so if Bangladesh Government representatives do not attend – this will breed controversy. But WCSF publicised some facts which made everybody aware of the true facts. So it has been learnt that Bangladesh government representatives will not be attending this seminar.

But JC is continuing with their efforts. As a part of their lobbying, a seminar titled “Bangladesh: Democracy, Rule Of Law and Freedom Of Expression” is being arranged in the Queen Mary Mason Lecture Theatre. The seminar will be presided by Barrister Ashaduzzaman Fuad., the convenor of JC and the chief guest will be Barrister Mahbub Hossain and Barrister Badruddoza Badal, the Chairman and Secretary of Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association respectively.

***********************

Lietzau, William K. “Checks and Balances and Elements of Proof: Structural Pillars for the International Criminal Court.” Cornell International Law Journal. 32 (1999): 477-88.

Abstract: The article explains the significance of the work that is being done by the ICC’s PrepComm, the body responsible for drafting the “Elements of Crime” and “Rules of Evidence and Procedure”.

Hockett, Jeffrey D. “Justice Robert H. Jackson, the Supreme Court, and the Nuremberg Trial.” The Supreme Court Review. 1990 (1990): 257-99.

Abstract: Justice Robert H Jackson regarded his service as United States Chief of Counsel at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial as “the most satisfying and gratifying experience” of his life and “infinitely more important” than his work on the Supreme Court. Many lauded Jackson’s efforts and agreed that Nuremberg represented a landmark in international law. Others denied the legitimacy of the Trial and excoriated Jackson for participating. The Trial, some argued, was a negation of principles that lie at the heart of any system of justice under law. it is odd that there is no sustained assessment of Jackson’s decision to participate in the event. Therefore, an examination of Jackson’s Nuremberg experience is of more than historical interest, since requests for judicial participation in international trials seem possible in an increasingly interdependent world.

Leblanc, Lawrence J. The United States and the Genocide Convention – Part 1. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991.

Abstract: This book examines issues related to United State’s delayed ratification of the Genocide Convention (adopted by UN in 1948).

Leblanc, Lawrence J. The United States and the Genocide Convention – Part 2. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991.

Abstract: This book examines issues related to United State’s delayed ratification of the Genocide Convention (adopted by UN in 1948).

Leblanc, Lawrence J. The United States and the Genocide Convention – Part 3. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991.

Abstract: This book examines issues related to United State’s delayed ratification of the Genocide Convention (adopted by UN in 1948).

প্রায় ৪০ বছর পর মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সময় যুদ্ধে অংশগ্রহণকারীদের অপরাধের দায়মুক্তি দিয়ে আইন প্রণয়ন করতে যাচ্ছে সরকার। মুক্তিযুদ্ধকালীন সম্মুখ সমরে পাকিস্তানী হানাদার বাহিনী কিংবা এদেশীয় রাজাকারদের হত্যা, বাড়িঘর জ্বালিয়ে দেয়াসহ যেসব অনিবার্য কাজ করতে হয়েছে এবং প্রচলিত আইনে যা অপরাধ তার দায় থেকে মুক্তি দিয়ে এ আইন প্রণীত হবে। জাতীয় সংসদের আইন বিচার ও সংসদ বিষয়ক মন্ত্রণালয় সম্পর্কিত সংসদীয় স্থায়ী কমিটি এ আইনসহ সংবিধানের বিভিন্ন বিধান কার্যকর করতে আরও প্রায় চল্লিশটি আইন প্রণয়নের উদ্যোগ নিয়েছে। আইন কমিশনকে এসব আইনের খসড়া তৈরি করে সংসদীয় কমিটির কাছে উপস্থাপন করতে বলা হয়েছে। আইন কমিশন ইতিমধ্যেই এসব আইনের খসড়া তৈরি করার উদ্যোগ গ্রহণ করেছে। কমিটির সভাপতি সুরঞ্জিত সেনগুপ্ত বলেছেন, স্বাধীনতার ৪০ বছর পরেও এ ধরনের আইন প্রণয়ন করা হয়নি বলেই জামায়াত এখন ওই সময়ের কর্মকা ের জন্য মুক্তিযোদ্ধাদের বিচার চাওয়ার সাহস দেখায়। এ আইন অনেক আগেই হওয়া উচিত ছিল।

According to the report, the Law Commission has already taken the initiative to draft the new law.

The baffling thing is, there already is a specific legislation enacted some 37 years ago which covers this area. It is The Bangladesh National Liberation Struggle (Indemnity) Order 1973 (P.O. No. 16 OF 1973). The law was passed on 28 February 1973 and it was given retrospective effect covering the whole period between 1 March 1971 to 28 February 1972. The text of this law reads as follows:

WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for indemnity to persons in the service of the Republic and to other persons in respect of act done in connection with the national liberation struggle, the maintenance or restoration of order;

NOW, THEREFORE, in pursuance of paragraph 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, and in exercise of all powers enabling him in that behalf, the President is pleased to make the following Order:-

1. (1) This Order may be called the Bangladesh National Liberation Struggle (Indemnity) Order, 1973.
(2) It shall come into force at once and shall be deemed to have taken effect on the 26th day of the March, 1972.

2. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie in any Court against any person for or on account of or in respect of any act done during the period from the 1st day of March, 1971 to the 16th day of December, 1971, in connection with the struggle for national liberation or for maintenance or restoration of order up to the 28th day of February, 1972.

3. A public prosecutor shall, upon the Government certifying that a case against any person in the service of the Republic or against any other person for or on account of or in respect of any act done by him during the period from the 1st day of March, 1971, and the 28th day of February, 1972, is an act done in connection with national liberation struggle or for maintenance or restoration of order, apply to the court and upon submission of such application the court shall not proceed further with the case, which shall be deemed to be withdrawn, and the accused person shall forthwith be discharged.

4. The Government may make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Order.

Based on the above, it is not clear why the government has chosen this moment to pass a new law on an already-settled matter which is bound to stir up new controversies. Is it possible that the “legal experts” advising the government are oblivious to the obvious existence of a law that already covers this area? Or is it to create and indemnify a new class of individuals based on considerations that have very little to do with law or justice?

It is still very early to make a definitive evaluation of the events but we probably need to keep a close watch on them.

***********************

Sarkin, J. “The Tension Between Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda: Politics, Human Rights, Due Process and The Role of the GACCA Courts in Dealing with the Genocide.” Journal of African Law. 45.2 (2001): 143-172.

Abstract: How a society deals with its past has a major determining influence on whether that society will achieve long-term peace and stability. The critical question for such a state is whether or not to prosecute and punish those responsible for past gross human rights abuses. The objectives of policies to deal with past human rights abuses are often to prevent future human rights abuses and to repair the damage that has been caused. The need of victims and the society as a whole to heal from the wounds inflicted upon them by the former regime often has to be balanced against the political reality in which the new government may have limited political power, and in which it may have inherited a fragile state. A new state has to be founded on a commitment to human rights and a dedication to the rule of law. Often, however, the aims of achieving national reconciliation, building unity, reconstructing the institutions necessary for stable political and economic systems, and obtaining the resources necessary to fund the transition are in conflict with dealing with the past.Criminal trials are one way in which the facts of past abuses may be established. The establishment of a truth commission is another. However, either strategy in isolation can have dire consequences.

Lippman, M. “Genocide: The Crime of the Century. The Jurisprudence of Death at the Dawn of the New Millennium.” Hous. J. Int’l L. 23.3 (2000): 467-536.

Abstract: This article traces the international legal response to a century of global genocide. It discusses the concept of genocide and the evolution of if the law of genocide through examples of Eichmann trial, Vietnam war and Yugoslav and Rwandan war.