Role Of Tribunals International Crimes Tribunal For War Crimes
1. Role of Tribunals in Bangladesh
Tribunals in Bangladesh, particularly the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), were established to address crimes committed during the Liberation War of 1971, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Legal Framework:
International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 (amended in 2009) governs the ICT.
Mandate: Investigate and prosecute persons responsible for crimes like genocide, mass killings, torture, rape, arson, and forced displacement during the 1971 war.
Structure: ICT operates as a domestic tribunal, unlike the International Criminal Court; it follows Bangladeshi procedural law with international standards of fair trial.
Role:
Justice delivery: Hold perpetrators accountable.
Documentation of crimes: Provide historical record of atrocities.
Deterrence: Discourage future atrocities.
Victim acknowledgment: Restore dignity of survivors.
2. Key Cases Under ICT with Detailed Explanation
Case 1: Abdul Quader Molla (2013)
Facts:
Abdul Quader Molla, a leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, was charged with multiple war crimes during 1971, including mass killings and torture in Mirpur, Dhaka.
He was initially sentenced to life imprisonment, but prosecution appealed for the death penalty, citing the gravity of his crimes.
Judgment:
The ICT Appellate Division upgraded the sentence to death penalty, citing multiple confirmed counts of murder, mass killings, and crimes against humanity.
Executed on 12 December 2013.
Legal Significance / Tribunal Role:
Enforcement of accountability for high-level leaders.
Demonstrated the tribunal’s power to impose the maximum penalty for crimes against humanity.
Showed tribunal’s role in balancing domestic law with international principles of justice.
Case 2: Delwar Hossain Sayeedi (2013)
Facts:
Sayeedi, another senior Jamaat leader, was charged with religiously motivated killings and persecution in 1971.
Victims included Hindu minorities in Faridpur.
Judgment:
ICT convicted him on 16 counts.
Initially sentenced to death, later reduced to life imprisonment due to mitigating circumstances on appeal.
Legal Significance / Tribunal Role:
Established that religious persecution during war constitutes crimes against humanity.
Tribunal highlighted importance of fair trial and evidence-based prosecution.
Example of proportional sentencing—showing tribunals consider mitigating factors.
Case 3: Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin and Ashrafuz Zaman Khan (2013, In Absentia)
Facts:
Both accused of organizing systematic killings of intellectuals during December 1971.
They had fled Bangladesh and were living abroad.
Judgment:
ICT convicted them in absentia for mass killings and conspiracy to exterminate intellectuals.
Sentenced to death.
Legal Significance / Tribunal Role:
Demonstrates ICT’s authority to prosecute even absconding perpetrators.
Reinforced principle that perpetrators cannot evade justice due to fleeing the country.
Highlighted the tribunal’s documentary evidence-based approach when direct testimony is unavailable.
Case 4: Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed (2015)
Facts:
Mojaheed, senior Jamaat leader, involved in killings, arson, and mass torture of civilians in Dhaka and Chittagong.
Charged with crimes including murder, rape, and forced displacement.
Judgment:
Convicted by ICT and sentenced to death.
Appeals upheld the sentence; executed on 22 November 2015.
Legal Significance / Tribunal Role:
Reinforced the tribunal’s role in prosecuting organized, systematic atrocities.
Served as a warning to political and paramilitary figures involved in wartime crimes.
Tribunal emphasized meticulous collection of eyewitness and documentary evidence.
Case 5: Muhammad Kamaruzzaman (2015)
Facts:
Kamaruzzaman was accused of overseeing mass killings and torturing civilians in Narail and other districts.
Evidence included survivor testimony, newspaper reports, and documents from 1971.
Judgment:
Convicted by ICT and sentenced to death.
Appeals rejected; executed on 11 April 2015.
Legal Significance / Tribunal Role:
Demonstrated ICT’s approach to systematic evidence collection over decades-old crimes.
Tribunal reinforced victim recognition, giving historical closure to families of 1971 victims.
Showed the tribunal’s effectiveness in upholding principles of justice despite delayed trials.
3. Key Roles of ICT Illustrated by These Cases
Accountability: Holds political and military leaders responsible for atrocities.
Victim Justice: Focus on acknowledging victims’ suffering and compensatory moral justice.
Historical Documentation: Establishes an official record of 1971 crimes.
Deterrence: Serves as a warning to future perpetrators of mass crimes.
Rule of Law: Demonstrates that even decades-old crimes can be tried under law with fair procedure.
4. Summary Table
| Case | Crime | Sentence | Key Restorative Element |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abdul Quader Molla | Mass killings, torture | Death | Accountability, justice for victims |
| Delwar Hossain Sayeedi | Religious persecution, killings | Life imprisonment | Proportional justice, fair trial |
| Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin & Ashrafuz Zaman Khan | Intellectual killings | Death (in absentia) | Justice even if absconded |
| Ali Ahsan Mojaheed | Mass killings, arson, rape | Death | Systematic atrocity prosecution |
| Muhammad Kamaruzzaman | Mass killings, torture | Death | Evidence-based justice, victim acknowledgment |
Conclusion:
The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh has played a pivotal role in prosecuting war crimes, delivering justice for victims, creating historical records, and ensuring that perpetrators cannot escape accountability. These cases collectively highlight the tribunal’s judicial rigor, victim-oriented approach, and deterrent effect on future crimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments