International Crimes Tribunals Research Articles

Proving Modes of Criminal Liability in Prosecuting International Crimes: An Analysis of International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh

is study examines how the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh (ICTB)- a domestic criminal court, is prosecuting and punishing international criminalities perpetrated in the Bangladesh Freedom War in 1971 through the flaw laws in proving the modes of individual criminal responsibility that hinder securing criminal justice to the parties. By applying a qualitative approach, this study firstly scrutinizes the modes of criminal responsibility in the ICTB’s Statue-the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973 and whether such notion is supported by international customary law in 1971 and 2010. Secondly, this study outlines different modes of liabilities, such as Joint Criminal Enterprise and Superior Liability, that are extensively applied by the jurisprudence of the ICTB in more than 51 individual cases to date. Lastly, as the originality of this research, it advances ‘Two Proposals’ that need to be executed by the ICTB to secure criminal justice to the relevant bodies in improving its legitimacy to the global criminal justice system. Then, the study concludes that in any failure to uphold the customary law requirement of proving the Joint Criminal Enterprise and the Superior Liability as the particular modes of criminal liability, the tribunal will lose its legal credibility.

Ex Post Facto Prosecution of International Crimes in the Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal: An Issue of Constitutionality

Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal-a domestic criminal court is currently prosecuting the offenders of atrocious crimes perpetrated in the Bangladesh War of Independence in 1971. Though the atrocious offenses took place in 1971, the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) Act 1973 was decreed by Bangladeshi Parliament in 1973, and the Tribunal was established in 2010; hence the ICT Act 1973 is considered as an ex post facto (retrospective) legislation because it has been promulgated after the commission of the crimes. Therefore, this study first analyzes the importance of ex post facto law’s prohibition in customary international law. Secondly, the study highlights how the 1973 ICT Act applies to prosecute the ICTB’s defendants retrospectively by amending the constitution of Bangladesh. Thirdly, it examines the ex post facto legislation’s application in the Bangladesh Tribunal and the issue of constitutionality because rules on the prohibition of retrospective legislation is one of the fundamental rights of every citizen that need to be safeguarded by every constitution of civilized nations. Lastly, this study's originality proves that ex post facto law’s application in the ICTB is unconstitutional. Then, this research paper concludes by inferring that the government of Bangladesh needs to amend the constitution to prohibit the ex post facto law’s implementation through the Tribunal that will enhance the legal acceptability of the War Crimes Court because the recent Criminal Court in question is operating under the Bangladeshi government.   

Trial by Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal: justice divulged or political agenda?

Trial by Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal: justice divulged or political agenda?

The Normative Significance of the International Crimes Tribunal Legal Regime of Bangladesh

The Normative Significance of the International Crimes Tribunal Legal Regime of Bangladesh

‘I was celebrating the justice that the victims got’: exploring irreconciliation among Bangladeshi human rights activists in London

AbstractThis essay investigates transnational human rights activist networks seeking justice for war crimes committed during the Bangladesh War of 1971, especially in light of the International Crimes Tribunal in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Focusing on activists in London, it demonstrates the need to engage with transitional justice initiatives discursively and ethnographically in order to avoid losing sight of the ways in which uses of human rights concepts can veil power dimensions through universalist legalistic abstractions. The essay explores engagements with atrocities of the war by mapping the travel and uses of human rights tropes to articulate claims of justice. It showcases how in addressing the violence of the Bangladesh War, victor justice and punishment are emphasized while futures are imagined in which enemies no longer exist. In the examples, a language of justice is employed to call for prosecution, but justice is reframed so that it is equated with the impossibility of reconciling people on opposing sides during the war.

Prosecuting Crimes against Humanity and Genocide at the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh: An Approach to International Criminal Law Standards

Bangladesh is recently prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and genocide committed in the Liberation War of 1971 via a domestically operated tribunal, namely the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh (ICTB). Though the Tribunal is preceded under municipal law, its material jurisdiction, i.e., crimes against humanity and genocide, originated from international criminal law. Therefore, this study examines several legal obligations of the ICTB in defining crimes against humanity and genocide as the core international crimes. First, I discuss several legal flaws of the Tribunal by defining crimes against humanity and genocide under the ICTB Statute and jurisprudence. Second, I scrutinize the legal status of international (treaty and customary) laws in Bangladesh’s legal system. Third, by applying international criminal law standards, I focus on the idea that it is one of the obligations of Bangladesh to apply international criminal law definitions of genocide under the treaty obligation as the contracting parties to Genocide Convention 1948, and the ICC Statute 1998. Fourthly, I also discuss whether Bangladesh has any obligation to apply customary international law definition of crimes against humanity because crimes against humanity are considered jus cogens offenses in general international law, from which no derogation is permitted. Lastly, I conclude that Bangladesh Tribunal failed to fulfill its legal obligation to define international crimes under the treaty and customary laws and forward a way to be implemented to improve the legislative system of Bangladesh and harmonize it with international legislation.

Words and violence: militant Islamist attacks on bloggers in Bangladesh and the UK

ABSTRACT From 2013, groups associated with Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent systematically targeted secular bloggers and writers in Bangladesh and its international diaspora for brutal killings and relentless harassment. At least twelve writers were killed after 2013. This article explores the historical context of the violence, including in the UK, a site of enduring conflicts between secular and political Islamist Bangladeshis. The context includes memories of the 1971 Bangladeshi genocide and the charged political environment after 2009 arising from the International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) that had sought to bring perpetrators of the genocide to trial. The rise of political blogging in the Bangladeshi diaspora and the impact of the killings is explored. A range of conceptual issues are discussed, including the power of social media in the killings and the mobilization of political fear. The article is based on depth interviews with Bangladeshi bloggers and activists living under threat.

Non-retroactivity in Prosecuting Crimes against Humanity and International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh

The International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh (ICTB) was set up by Bangladesh through the adaptation of the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973, as an internal mechanism trying to prosecute and punish Bangladeshi perpetrators who committed international crimes in Bangladesh liberation war in 1971. After a long disappearance from the public eye, the Tribunal was reemerged in 2010. The recent cases decided by the Tribunal have revealed that the international crimes; namely, crimes against humanity, were allegedly committed in 1971, while the relevant Statute was enacted in 1973, and was implemented in 2010. Recently, the ICTB is prosecuting crimes against humanity retroactively, which might have violated the prohibition of penalizing certain conducts committed by the perpetrators before the enforcement of such conduct as a law banning such demeanor as an offense. Therefore, this study firstly analyzes the rule against retroactivity in international criminal law. Secondly, it investigates the justification of the retroactive criminalization of crimes against humanity at the first International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, and its crystallization into the regional and international legal instruments. Thirdly, the study examines the characteristics of crimes against humanity as an international crime, to scrutinize whether the ICTB needs to fulfill such requirements either in 1971 or 2010. Then, it illustrates various judgments of the ICTB, demonstrating that it does not comply with the rule prescribed by international laws either in 1971 or 2010, in prosecuting crimes against humanity retroactively. Lastly, the study concludes by forwarding ways necessary to the ICTB in retroactive prosecution of international offenses.

War Crimes Trials in Bangladesh: Justice or Politics?

The aim of this paper is to examine the trial process and standard of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh. The main aim of the paper is to explore whether the trial is about justice or politics. Two International Crimes Tribunals (ICTs) have been established following the amended ICT Act 2009 after 40 years of independence. To date, more than 30 verdicts have been delivered by the tribunals and most of the accused have been proved to be war criminals, as collaborators with the Pakistani army, and involved in the politics of Jamaat who have penalized for capital punishment. Jammat is name of a political party in Bangladesh. Although the tribunal is named ‘the International Crimes Tribunal’, no international judges or prosecutors – like those who have taken part in the tribunals of Nuremberg, Tokyo, Rwanda, Yugoslavia or the permanent International Criminal Court of The Hague – have been involved in this trial process. The Pakistani military who were involved and accused as war criminals have also been excluded from prosecution. Therefore, a lot of criticisms have made about the trial process and standard; however, some unique features can be found, such as an appeal to the Supreme Court and a mercy petition to the President. It has also been proved that politics are involved in the war crimes and even the trial process, which is not influenced solely by the abstract notions of justice. The paper takes the form of a descriptive case study and is based on mainly secondary sources of information.

Bangladesh's Approach Towards International Criminal Law: A Case Study of International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh

The International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh that has been found by the Bangladeshi Government to try war crimes during India Pakistan war of 1971. The tribunal is violating the fair trial rights as guaranteed by Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Humanitarian Law and the standard of the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh is far below than that setup by The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. These irregularities imply serious concern over the proceedings of the said tribunal. Study seeks to describe the International Law about war crimes particularly with respect to fair trial provisions and it compare the proceedings of the Bangladeshi tribunal with the other internationally recognized tribunals.

Bangladesh's Approach towards International Criminal Law: A Case Study of International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh

The International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh that has been found by the Bangladeshi Government to try war crimes during India Pakistan war of 1971. The tribunal is violating the fair trial rights as guaranteed by Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Humanitarian Law and the standard of the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh is far below than that setup by The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. These irregularities imply serious concern over the proceedings of the said tribunal. Study seeks to describe the International Law about war crimes particularly with respect to fair trial provisions and it compare the proceedings of the Bangladeshi tribunal with the other internationally recognized tribunals.

Bangladesh-Pakistan relations: hostage to a traumatic past

ABSTRACTBangladesh-Pakistan relations reached a low point in December 2013 when the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh convicted nine persons of war crimes pertaining to Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, and imposed a death sentence on senior Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leader Abdul Quader Molla. This paper examines the trials in connection to their impact on Bangladesh-Pakistan relations. The analysis in this paper shows that the traumatic break of East and West Pakistan continues to haunt bilateral relations and now has spill-over effects on South Asian regionalism. It also argues that the Awami League-India nexus is another historically persistent factor precluding better Dhaka-Islamabad relations.

Party System Institutionalization and Pernicious Polarization in Bangladesh

This article traces the development of political polarization in Bangladesh since its 1971 war of independence. I show how polarization is elite-driven, hinging mostly on competing views of the foundation myth of the nation. One major political bloc has emerged that ties national identity tightly to religion (Islam), where the other bloc prefers a national identity tied to ethnicity and use of the Bengali language. I show how an underdeveloped party system has contributed to the resulting political and societal polarization that stems from this ideological divide, which was created by elites as they attempted to consolidate party power. Further, I make a case that the activities of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)—established in 2010 to prosecute those who aided the Pakistani army in committing war crimes during the 1971 war—actually increased polarization and made it pernicious. Instead of healing the nation, the ICT exacerbated old political cleavages and instigated violence and social tension, making Bangladesh’s young democracy more unstable and careening.

Judicializing History: Mass Crimes Trials and the Historian as Expert Witness in West Germany, Cambodia, and Bangladesh

Henry Rousso warned that the engagement of historians as expert witnesses in trials, particularly highly politicized proceedings of mass crimes, risks a judicialization of history. This article tests Rousso’s argument through analysis of three quite different case studies: the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial; the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia; and the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. It argues that Rousso’s objections misrepresent the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, while failing to account for the engagement of historical expertise in mass atrocity trials beyond Europe. Paradoxically, Rousso’s criticisms are less suited to the European context that represents his purview, and apply more readily to the highly-politicized crimes tribunals outside the continent. Finally, it contends that the importance of the proceedings themselves should be measured in full against the hypothetically corrupting effects of historians’ engagement as experts in court.

The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh and International Law

The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh was re-established in 2010 in order to hold the perpetrators of the 1971 War accountable for international crimes; namely, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Trial has already begum to operate and has been dealing with various challenges. The basis of the trial proceedings is the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. The Parliament of Bangladesh enacted the Act in accordance with international law shortly after the War. This paper assesses the key legal issues that arise from the context of the 1973 Act, and will provide a reflection on trial proceedings in light of international law. It concludes that any initiatives to address the impunity of perpetrators and offer redress to the victims of gross human rights violations should be applauded, while any trial proceedings that do not follow appropriate standards for a fair trial and offer the right of due process should be deprecated.

Context, image and the case of the Shahbag movement

This research discusses the importance of a photograph of an accused war criminal, Abdul Kader Molla, during the period immediately before the emergence of the Shahbag movement in Bangladesh. The image captures Kader Molla flashing a V sign, and it was taken in the moments after he had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh in 2013. After Kader Molla’s punishment was revised to a death sentence, a number of images were circulated online of protesters flashing the same V sign. All these moments pose a key question which this research seeks to answer: How does this image of Kader Molla signify a crucial point of reference for the mobilisation of the Shahbag movement? To provide an answer, this paper discusses a historical context of the tensions between people and the state in Bangladesh and how personalised memory can make such tensions visible.

International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh (ICTB) and Violations of Right to Fair Trial: A Comparative Study

Right to fair trial is recognized internationally as a fundamental human right and countries are bound to respect it. Therefore the war crime tribunals of former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) were fully accepted the fair trial right and with the mandate of United Nations, incorporated it in their statutes as a guarantee against the unlawful actions. While the domestic war crime tribunal of Bangladesh (ICTB) follows its own special procedures and rules which is lacking the fair trial guarantees to ensure a free and fair trial. In terms of rights ensuring fair trial guarantees, procedure, statutes and working, there are huge differences found between the ICTB and the other two internationally recognized tribunals (ICTY & ICTR). The ICTY and ICTR appear more transparent and fair than the ICTB. The ICTB has repeatedly deviated from the recognized judicial norms and principal of fair trial. Moreover, non-compliance with the ICCPR, violations of the domestic laws of the country and the revealed Skype scandal makes the tribunal (ICTB) illegal.

The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh: silencing fair comment

In 2010, the government of Bangladesh established a special, ad hoc court to adjudicate grave crimes committed during the war of independence that led to the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.1 Formed...

Watching the International Crimes Tribunal from London

This paper analyses responses in London to the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh and protests associated with it in 2013. Based on analysis of websites, social media and interview material, it examines interpretations of contemporary events in Bangladesh. The article makes no claims to any privileged information or ‘truth’ about these events. Instead, it argues that interpretations of events in Bangladesh by Bangladeshis in London differ from those in Bangladesh. Recent events in Bangladesh have led to an increase in transnational political activism among some British Bangladeshis. In London there have been concerted attempts to challenge dominant discourses about Bangladesh’s Liberation War and contemporary politics. In many cases these are related to or inspired by Islamic political movements that have become influential among British Bangladeshis.

Sentencing Under the International Crimes Tribunals in Bangladesh: A Critical Analysis

The international community, in the aftermath of the Second World War, has been united in its resolve to not treat extraordinary crimes, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, with impunity. Yet, there has been a deliberate gap in international jurisprudence regarding the determination and distribution of punishment for such crimes. In the absence of guidance from the international community, the recently formed International Crimes Tribunals in Bangladesh (ICT-BD I & II) have established the death penalty for perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity. After a forty-year delay, these trials have been instituted to redress the atrocities committed by local collaborators in 1971, during the hostile separation of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, and West Pakistan. In analysing the penal framework of the tribunals, this paper answers two important questions; firstly, whether capital punishment is consistent with the values and principles of international criminal law; secondly, whether the tribunals’ practice of awarding the death penalty can actually foster justice and reconciliation in a nation distraught by political turmoil and polarized public opinion. Applying a retributivist critique, this paper finds that even if Bangladesh’s sentencing practices may not contravene international law and norms, a more enlightened model of justice is required to enable national reconciliation.