Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal should pursue justice, not vengeance

Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal should pursue justice, not vengeance

saydee-bearded1The death sentence handed down by the International Crimes Tribunal today against Delwar Hossain Sayeedi (photo) violates international standards of due process and fair trial, and, if carried out, would violate his right to life, says the ICJ. 

“The ICJ wholly condemns the atrocities committed in Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971, notably the widespread and systematic use of rape as a form of torture and the unlawful killings. It is paramount that those responsible should be held accountable,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director. “But even perpetrators of atrocities have rights. They should be brought to justice, not subjected to vengeance.”

Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, vice-president of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was indicted on 3 October 2011 on 20 charges including genocide and crimes against humanity. He was arrested and brought before the War Crimes Tribunal for the first time on 2 November 2010. He was accused of working with the Al-Badr group during the independence struggle in the early 1970s.

The International Commission of Jurists opposes the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and a form of cruel and inhuman punishment. The United Nations General Assembly has called on all States to establish a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to universal abolition.

Today, crowds gathered outside the courthouse as the verdict was being read, demanding Delwar Hossain Sayeedi be sentenced to death for his role in the atrocities committed in the 1971 war of liberation. Earlier this month, widespread protests erupted across Bangladesh after the Tribunal imposed a life sentence on Abdul Qadar Mollah instead of the death penalty.

“The enormous demonstrations and the unfortunate violence that have accompanied each decision of the ICT demonstrate the passions still enflamed by the crimes of 1971. But it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the rule of law and the path to justice are not subject to immediate political pressure,” Zarifi added. “The Government’s obligation to bring those responsible for the atrocities committed in 1971 to justice must not outweigh the presumption of innocence and the duty to ensure the security of all persons.”

The ICJ says that the International Crimes Tribunal does not adhere to international standards of a fair trial and due process.

According to the ICJ, there are serious procedure flaws at all stages: pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.

On 14 February 2013, a draft amendment was tabled in Parliament, retroactively changing the International Criminal (Tribunals) Act 1973 to enable prosecutors to appeal a life sentence and seek the death penalty.

This amendment came after protests for a death sentence in the 5 February 2013 verdict against Abul Qadar Mollah.

As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Bangladesh is obligated to guarantee due process and fair trial rights to all suspects, even those accused of war crimes.

Such obligations include the right to an public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal; the right to be tried in one’s presence; the right to counsel and the right to a full defence; and the right not to be punished again for an offence for which there has already been a final conviction in accordance with the law.

“Failing to abide by minimum standards of due process will cast doubt on the Tribunal’s findings and undermine victims’ hard-fought battle for justice,” Zarifi said. “The Bangladesh Tribunal is one of very few transitional justice mechanisms that have imposed the death penalty.”

This verdict is the third issued by the tribunal. Earlier this month, Abdul Qader Mollah, the assistant secretary-general of the Jamaat-e-Islami was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for committing crimes against humanity during the 1971 liberation war.

On 21 January, Abul Kalam Azad, a former leading member of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was tried and convicted in absentia and sentenced to death for crimes committed during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971. He was convicted on six counts of a crime against humanity and one count of genocide.

The government established the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal in 2010, after amending the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973. The International Crimes Tribunal has jurisdiction to try crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, genocide, violations of the Geneva conventions and any other crimes under international law.

The ICJ supports the right of victims to seek truth and justice for the atrocities committed in the 1971 Liberation War.

However, any such process must adhere to international human rights standards, including full guarantees for a fair trial.

CONTACT:

Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 26198477; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org

Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme, t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org

 

 

ICJ holds seminar on prerogative writs under the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar

ICJ holds seminar on prerogative writs under the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar

Seminar Nay PyitawThe ICJ, in collaboration with the Office of the Attorney General of the Union of Myanmar, held a two-day academic seminar in Naypyitaw entitled “The Prerogative Writs under the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar”.

At the event, which took place on 14 – 15 February 2013, opening remarks were given by His Excellency Dr. Tun Shin, Attorney General of the Union of Myanmar and Mr. Saman-Zarifi, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific of International Commission of Jurists, to a total of approximately 40 public prosecutors and judges.

The aim of the seminar was to discuss and contribute to the application of the recently re-introduced prerogative writs, namely, habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, under Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution which came into force in early 2011.

The seminar allowed ICJ to not only gain a deeper insight into the current writ practices in Myanmar but also permitted the Office of the Attorney General to draw best practices from other countries, such as Australia, Philippines and Malaysia.

The topics addressed during the seminar were the importance of prerogative writs in ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law; specific international standards on the independence of prosecutors and their role in the justice system; how writ cases are handled, challenges faced by the prosecutors and the burden of proof; and the powers of the judiciary to promulgate its own rules to ensure fundamental rights, as in the case of the Supreme Court in Philippines.

Panelists included Justice John Dowd AO QC, former Chairman of the International Commission of Jurists; Justice Adolfo Azcuna, Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy and former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines; and Mr. Andrew Khoo of the Malaysian Bar Council.

 

Nepal: ICJ calls for end to political interference in case of Dekendra Thapa killing

Nepal: ICJ calls for end to political interference in case of Dekendra Thapa killing

dekendra_thapaThe Nepali government must ensure that the case of the 2004 killing of journalist Dekendra Thapa (photo) can proceed without further political interference, the ICJ said today.

“Political interference into an ongoing criminal investigation constitutes a fundamental attack on the rule of law in Nepal,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Nepal Country Representative. “The Government must ensure that there are no further attempts to subvert the course of justice.”

On 11 January, Nepal’s Attorney General, Mukti Pradhan, sent a written instruction to the local police and prosecutor not to move forward with the investigation and prosecution.

In response to a petition challenging the instruction, on 16 January, the Supreme Court ordered both Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and the Attorney General not to intervene in the ongoing investigation.

The Home Ministry subsequently ordered the transfer of officials involved in the investigation, and the Prime Minister himself has made public statements calling for the suspects to be released pending the much-delayed formation of a promised truth commission.

“It is now the obligation of the justice system to ensure due process and the right to a fair trial,” Rawski added. “This is an opportunity for Nepal to illustrate the political will exists to address past human rights violations, and that the country’s judiciary can provide justice for the victims while protecting the rights of the defendants.”

Dekendra Thapa was allegedly tortured and buried alive by Maoist cadres in 2004 during the country’s decade-long civil war, which ended in 2006.

The case was finally submitted to a District Court yesterday (January 28, 2013) by the District Attorney of Dailekh in Mid-Western Nepal. The Dailekh District Attorney has charged nine people alleged to be involved.

Five of the suspects have been arrested and produced before the district court.

“Dekendra Thapa was one of the thousands of civilians whose deaths have gone without proper explanation or justice,” said Rawski. “Thanks to the courageous decision of the local authorities to proceed with this case, there is now an opportunity for the Nepali justice system to begin answering the demands for justice.”

Contact:
In Kathmandu, Frederick Rawski, ICJ Nepal Country Representative : t +977-984-959-7681
In Bangkok, Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director: t +66-807-819-002

Photo credit: Dhurba Basnet

Laos: community leader Sombath Somphone must be found

Laos: community leader Sombath Somphone must be found

sombathThe ICJ calls on the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) to take an active role in determining the fate and whereabouts of Sombath Somphone, a community leader in Laos.

The ICJ also calls on the AICHR to fulfill its mandate under Article 4, paragraph 1.11 of its Terms of Reference, and develop a common position and strategy for tackling the serious problem of enforced and involuntary disappearances in the ASEAN region.

This position must aim towards hastening the resolution of cases of enforced and involuntary disappearances in the region, as well as effectively preventing these violations in the future.

Sombath Somphone is the founder and former director of the Participatory Development Training Center (PDTC) and 2005 recipient of the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership.

He also led Laos’ civil society groups in participating at the Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF) held in October 2012.

He was last seen being stopped by local police at the Thadeau police station on 15 December 2012, at around 5:00pm.

His family has no information on his fate or whereabouts to this day.

“It should be an urgent concern for the AICHR to give sustained priority to this case and it should vigorously encourage the government of Laos to make every effort to locate him,” said Sam Zarifi, Regional Director of the ICJ for Asia and the Pacific.

“The AICHR should seize this case as a chance to address the issue of enforced and involuntary disappearances in the ASEAN,” Zarifi added. “It should use its mandate to formulate a common position on this issue, to push governments to resolve cases of enforced and involuntary disappearances in the region.”

Following his “disappearance”, the AEPF requested ASEAN parliamentarians to conduct a mission to Laos to investigate the case.

To that end, three parliamentarians from the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia traveled to Laos from 13 to 15 January 2013 and spoke to high-level representatives of government about the “disappearance” of Sombath Somphone.

One of the parliamentarians, Mr. Charles Santiago, observed that the government of Laos had evinced no political will to resolve this case.

He noted the half-hearted efforts of police in investigating this case, as illustrated by the fact that they had only called in twice Ng Shui Meng, Sombath Somphone’s wife, since her husband had been missing.

On both occasions, she was asked questions irrelevant to the case, such as how long they had been married, whether or not they had children, and where they reside.

The parliamentarians made it clear that finding Sombath Somphone, a well-known civil society leader, is crucial.

As pointed out in a public statement by Mr. Walden Bello, the parliamentarian from the Philippines, “the immediate surfacing of Mr. Sombath is in the interest of all parties, of Mr. Sombath and his family, of the Lao PDR, and of the ASEAN.”

The ICJ recalls that all States, including Laos, have an obligation to conduct a prompt, thorough and independent investigation wherever there are reasonable suspicions of enforced or involuntary disappearance.

The ICJ also emphasizes that resolving the case of Sombath Somphone is important not only for Laos, but also for the ASEAN as a region.

His citation for the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership indicates he is recognized for “his hopeful efforts to promote sustainable development in Laos by training and motivating its young people to become a generation of leaders.”

His work not only benefits the people of Laos, but also contributes to the aspiration of ASEAN as expressed in its Charter, which is that of ensuring “sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations and to place the well-being, livelihood and welfare of the peoples at the center of the ASEAN community building process.”

Sombath Somphone is the kind of leader integral to the realization of this vision of the ASEAN.

 

Contact:

Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Advisor, International Commission of Jurists, Bangkok; m: +66 840923575, email: emerlynne.gil@icj.org

 

Sri Lanka: appointment of new Chief Justice undermines Rule of Law

Sri Lanka: appointment of new Chief Justice undermines Rule of Law

mohanpeirisThe appointment of former Attorney General Mohan Peiris (photo) as Sri Lanka’s new Chief Justice raises serious concerns about the future of the Rule of Law and accountability in the country, the ICJ said today.

Mohan Peiris has served in a variety of high-level legal posts in the past decade, always playing a key role in defending the conduct of the Sri Lankan government.

He served as Sri Lanka’s Attorney-General from 2009 to 2011. Since then he has served as the legal adviser to President Mahinda Rajapakse and the Cabinet.

“During his tenure as Attorney-General and the government’s top legal advisor Mohan Peiris consistently blocked efforts to hold the government responsible for serious human rights violations and disregarded international law and standards,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.

“Mohan Peiris’ appointment as the new Chief Justice, after a politically compromised and procedurally flawed impeachment, adds serious insult to the gross injury already inflicted on Sri Lanka’s long suffering judiciary.”

The International Commission of Jurists, in its recent report on impunity in Sri Lanka, highlighted Mohan Peiris’ lack independence as Attorney-General, noting the alarming number of cases involving prominent politicians that were withdrawn during his tenure.

In November 2011, as Attorney General, Peiris told the UN Committee Against Torture in Geneva that political cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda, believed to have been subjected to enforced disappearance in January 2010, had actually left Sri Lanka. In June 2012, Peiris admitted to a court in Colombo that this claim was groundless.

“ICJ condemns this appointment as a further assault on the independence of the judiciary and calls on the Sri Lankan government to reinstate Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. If there are grounds for questioning the Chief Justice’s actions, they should be pursued following due process and a proper impeachment process.”

CONTACT:

Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Bangkok, t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org

Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme, Bangkok, t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org

NOTE:

In a statement today (see below), Justice Bandarayanake strongly denied all the charges against her and asserted her status as the legal Chief Justice of Sri Lanka’s supreme court. She said: “The accusations leveled against me are blatant lies.  I am totally innocent of all charges…Since it now appears that there might be violence if I remain in my official residence or my chambers I am compelled to move…”

Sri Lanka-CJ final speech-2012 (full statement, in pdf)

Read also:

ICJ condemns impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice

Sri Lanka’s Parliament should reject motion to impeach Chief Justice

Impeachment of Sri Lankan Chief Justice: Government must adhere to international standards of due process

 

ICJ condemns impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice

ICJ condemns impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice

The ICJ condemned the decision of Sri Lanka’s parliament today to impeach the country’s Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake (photo).

“Parliament’s impeachment motion has defied the rulings of the country’s Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, and thus thrown into chaos the entire system of checks and balances in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific director.

“Sri Lanka’s parliament and executive have effectively decapitated the country’s judiciary in pursuit of short term political gain. As an immediate matter, this has precipitated a legal and constitutional crisis of unprecedented dimensions; but just as worrying are the consequences of this action, which severely erodes accountability and the rule of law in a country already suffering from decades of impunity.”

The impeachment decision now goes to President Mahinda Rajapakse, who precipitated this crisis initially. Under Article 107 of the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka, a Chief Justice can only be removed by an order of the President after a motion supporting the removal is passed by a simple majority of Parliamentarians.

The impeachment process against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake has been widely criticized for ignoring international standards and practice. On 6 December 2012, the Chief Justice and her team of lawyers walked out of the impeachment hearing in protest over the denial of a fair hearing. On 1 January 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment procedure in Parliament was not constitutionally valid, finding that such procedures could only be established ‘by law’ enacted by Parliament.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has publically vowed that it will not welcome a new Chief Justice and the Lawyers Collective has called on the Supreme Court and the superior judiciary to not recognize the newly appointed Chief Justice.

“President Rajapakse should refuse to appoint a new Chief Justice, and instead call on Parliament to enact a new law – through a transparent and democratic process – to govern the impeachment process. Any such law must comport with international standards on judicial independence and guarantees of due process and fair trial,” Zarifi added.

CONTACT:

Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Bangkok. t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org

Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme, Bangkok. t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org

See also previous ICJ press releases:

Sri Lanka’s Parliament should reject motion to impeach Chief Justice

Impeachment of Sri Lankan Chief Justice: Government must adhere to international standards of due process

Sri Lanka: new ICJ report documents ‘Crisis of Impunity’

 

Translate »