Ghulam Azam Trial
ICT contempt rule against HRW Sept 2
The International Crimes Tribunal-1 on Thursday set September 2 for its decision on the prosecution’s contempt petition against New York-based Human Rights Watch.
The war crimes prosecution brought the contempt charge against the international human rights watchdog alleging that it made ‘scandalous’ comments on war crimes trial of former
Jamaat chief Ghulam Azam.
The tribunal set the schedule after hearing the petition filed by chief war crimes prosecutor Gholam Arief Tipoo and prosecutors – Tureen Afroz, Sultan Mahmud Simon and Tapos Kanti Baul.
On August 20, the prosecution filed the petition for serving contempt notices on New York based board of directors of HRW, its San Francisco based Asia Division executive director Brad Adams and Washington based Asia Division associate Storm Tiv.
On July 15, ICT-1 jailed Ghulam Azam for 90 years for his 1971 crimes against humanity.
On August 5, he filed an appeal petition in the Appellate Division challenging his conviction.
On August 12, the chief war crimes prosecutor filed the government’s appeal petition against ‘the inadequate sentence’ and sought death penalty for Ghulam Azam.
The petitioners cited an HRW an article posted on its website on August 16 under the caption ‘Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on Flawed Proceedings: Analysis Outlines how Fair Trial Rights of Accused Was Seriously Compromised.’
In the article HRW said the Ghulam Azam trial was ‘deeply flawed’ and ‘did not meet international fair trial standards.’
Arguing for the motion the chief prosecutor said that the contempt petition was prompted by two comments of HRW –‘improper investigation by the tribunal judges on behalf of the prosecution’ and ‘collusion and biasness among prosecutors and judges.’
He submitted that bias and mala fide intention led HRW to make ‘the most unethical comments while the appeals against verdict in Ghulam Azam’s case were pending before the Appellate Division.
He said that the biased, baseless, utterly false, fabricated and ill-motivated comments were made not in good faith.
‘Such statements were made only to scandalize and undermine the tribunal and its process,’ he submitted.
Prosecutor Simon said that the trial was held in presence of visitors, observers and journalists from home and abroad but no representatives of HRW visited the tribunal even for once.
He said that HRW, in article, tried to destroy the country’s judiciary that had been working to establish the rights of the countrymen.
He said that the prosecution filed the petition to uphold the dignity of the court.
Tribunal judge, Justice Jahangir Hossain, at this point, said, ‘It seems that the article was written with guidance from someone.’
‘It seems that some watch-dogs are monitoring us,’ he said.
In his submission then, prosecutor Tapos mentioned a number of criticisms and grave allegations facing HRW for its bias.
He said Venezuela expelled HRW.
He also mentioned criticisms facing HRW from academicians, scholars, human rights activists across the world and even by a former chairman of HRW board of directors.
Tapos said that known for its pro-Gaddafi stand HRW allegedly erased its pro-Gaddafi articles after his fall in 2011.
He mentioned that HRW’s biased articles on Honduras abuses drew widespread criticism.
The major allegation facing HRW includes poor research and inaccuracy, selection bias, ideological bias, unethical fund raising policies, bias for or against particular nations, appointing Nazi policy supporters as investigators to report on war crimes or crimes against humanity, appointing pro-US terrorists in its advisory board and publicly supporting CIA’s illegal actions of extraordinary rendition towards suspected anti-US terrorists, he submitted.
Later prosecutor Tureen Afroz submitted that HRW was spreading falsehood in the name of human rights.
‘This very organization always had some hidden agendas. They collect funds from different countries that are the main violators of human rights. But the HRW keep mum about that. They could not make a single report on Kashmir in 20 years but made four reports in a year on Israel,” she said.
-With New Age input
