The International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh was established under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 with a specific historical purpose: to prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War.
Core Issue: Jurisdiction and Mandate
The legal foundation of the tribunal is tied to international crimes, not ordinary domestic offences. Its jurisdiction is clearly defined within the 1973 Act, which focuses on crimes recognized under international law. Therefore, using this tribunal to try purely domestic or contemporary political matters raises serious concerns about jurisdictional overreach.
Jurisdiction and the Limits of Mandate
The tribunal was created under the International Crimes Act of 1973 to address genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes linked to the Liberation War. Its purpose is specific and rooted in history. Extending its reach into contemporary or unrelated matters raises immediate legal concerns.
Courts derive their legitimacy from clearly defined jurisdiction. When that boundary becomes uncertain, the principle of legality is weakened. No individual should be tried under a framework that does not clearly apply to their case. Using a specialized tribunal in place of ordinary criminal courts risks undermining both constitutional balance and public confidence.
Due Process and Legal Certainty
A fair justice system depends on predictability and respect for established procedures. Every accused person has the right to know clearly the legal basis of the charges brought against them. When the jurisdiction of a tribunal appears to be stretched beyond what the law originally intended, that certainty begins to disappear.
International standards demand impartial courts, transparent proceedings, and full respect for the rights of the defense. When these principles are compromised, the problem does not remain confined to a single case. It raises doubts about every decision that the tribunal delivers. Justice must be applied consistently and fairly. It cannot be selective.
Structural Concerns: Four Pillars of Legitimacy at Risk
If a tribunal begins to operate beyond the mandate established by its founding law, several serious concerns emerge that go to the very core of judicial legitimacy.
- Violation of Legal Certainty
Every accused person has the right to know, in advance, the legal basis on which they are being tried. When a tribunal expands its jurisdiction beyond what its statute clearly authorizes, that certainty collapses. The principle of legality, often expressed in the doctrine of nullum crimen sine lege, is not a mere technical rule. It is a fundamental safeguard in every credible legal system.
- Questions About Due Process
Tribunals dealing with international crimes are expected to meet the highest standards of fairness. Global human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee the right to a fair trial before a competent, independent, and impartial court. When those standards are not fully respected, the damage goes beyond a single case. It undermines the credibility of every verdict the tribunal issues.
- Perception of Political Instrumentalization
A tribunal created to address grave historical crimes must remain clearly independent from present political interests. If it is seen as serving contemporary political objectives, its claim to neutrality weakens. In international law, the appearance of independence is almost as important as independence itself. A tribunal that is widely perceived as political cannot fulfill the moral purpose of delivering justice for mass atrocities.
- Tension with the Constitutional Framework
The Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees equality before the law and equal protection for all citizens. When cases are directed to a specialized tribunal that may not clearly possess jurisdiction, bypassing the ordinary judiciary, it risks creating a dual system of justice. Such a structure raises serious constitutional concerns and challenges the principle that the law must apply equally to everyone.
Removal and Destruction of Evidence of Corruption
Allegations of bribery against International Crimes Tribunal Prosecutor Gazi M H Tamim, along with the disappearance of key CCTV footage, have raised serious concerns about the transparency and impartiality of the trial process. Another prosecutor, BM Sultan, claimed that a relative of an accused in the Ashulia six-body burning case entered Tamim’s chamber carrying a bag of money. When officials attempted to verify the occurrences, CCTV footage from October 13 was found missing, reportedly due to a hard drive replacement, and could not be recovered. Justice Observatory Bangladesh has expressed deep concern, also citing previous allegations of large bribe demands in exchange for bail. These developments suggest possible tampering with evidence and undermine confidence in the tribunal, raising doubts about whether the accused are receiving a fair and impartial trial.
International Standards and Obligations
Fair trial principles are well established in international law. They include the presumption of innocence, the right to an impartial tribunal, and the ability to challenge evidence openly.
These are not optional ideals. They are basic conditions for justice. Bangladesh, as a signatory to key international instruments, carries an obligation to uphold these standards. The seriousness of the crimes being prosecuted makes adherence even more essential.
A Fair Counterpoint
Supporters of the tribunal argue that it is a domestic institution applying international law. Parliament has the authority to amend its mandate if required. These are valid points.
However, any expansion of jurisdiction must be transparent and constitutionally sound. More importantly, it must not compromise fairness or due process. The strength of a tribunal lies not in its power but in its credibility.
The Need for Change
The tribunal now stands at a critical moment. Questions surrounding jurisdiction, independence, and integrity cannot be ignored. Addressing these concerns requires more than denial.
An independent review of the tribunal’s legal framework would be a necessary first step. The process for appointing prosecutors should be transparent and insulated from political influence. Allegations of misconduct must be investigated by bodies that have no stake in the outcome. Only through credible oversight and genuine reform can confidence in the tribunal and its proceedings be restored.
Protecting the Right to Defense
The treatment of defense lawyers is equally important. Reports that a lawyer faced intimidation after asserting the presumption of innocence are deeply concerning.
A lawyer defending a client is not endorsing the alleged crime. They are upholding a principle that protects every citizen. If defense counsel operate under fear, the entire justice system becomes unbalanced.
A court where the defense cannot act freely cannot deliver credible justice.
Justice Must Be Seen
The International Crimes Tribunal was created to deliver justice for one of the darkest chapters in Bangladesh’s history. That mission remains vital.
But justice cannot rest on intention alone. It must be built on fairness, transparency, and integrity. The victims of 1971 deserve a process that stands above doubt.
Court competency is a fundamental requirement for any trial process. A court that lacks proper jurisdiction and authority cannot ensure a fair and just trial. In this context, concerns may be raised about whether the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh has the necessary competence to adjudicate the so-called July killing cases.
Parvez Hashem, Lawyer and Human Rights Defender
