The trial proceedings of several cases related to the July–August incidents at Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) are now in their final stages. Among them, the hearing in the case against veteran politician and Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) President Hasanul Haq Inu has already concluded, and a verdict is now awaited.
Following presentations by both the prosecution and the defense, the case is currently at the judicial decision stage. Inu remains imprisoned, while his family and lawyers have expressed concerns and raised questions regarding the fairness of the judicial process.
Summary Trial
The case has been described by critics as a summary trial, as final arguments were concluded within only nine working days.
Although witness testimony began on November 2, 2025, lawyers for the accused told The Voice that they were not given sufficient time to cross-examine witnesses. They also alleged that the prosecution created unnecessary interruptions during cross-examination proceedings. Hasanul Haq Inu was reportedly not given the opportunity to present an oral statement before the court in his own defense.
Final arguments later began on April 2, 2026, and concluded within just nine working days. The defense was given only one day — approximately three hours — to challenge the prosecution’s arguments. Most hearings began after 11 a.m. and ended by around 2 p.m. On several occasions, proceedings in other cases were conducted simultaneously alongside this trial.
Compared with earlier cases heard by the reconstituted tribunal following amendments to the law, the total duration of proceedings in this case was significantly shorter. Observers have cited the case of Ghulam Azam, where hearings continued over a lengthy period, broader opportunities for self-defense were provided, and defense lawyers were allowed adequate time to present their arguments.
According to legal experts, the disparity raises questions about the depth, duration, and equality of the judicial process. The government, however, maintains that determining the length of hearings falls within the procedural jurisdiction of the court.
Jurisdiction and Debate Over the Tribunal’s Scope
Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal was originally established to prosecute war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity committed during the 1971 Liberation War.
In recent times, however, significant legal and political controversy has emerged over bringing the political violence of 2024 under the tribunal’s framework.
Some legal experts argue that such incidents should instead be tried in ordinary criminal courts and do not fall within the jurisdiction of the ICT. According to them, the state has forcefully attempted to categorize these events as international crimes.
Death Toll and Allegations of One-Sided Justice
Government and other sources have claimed that around 1,400 people were killed and thousands injured during the July–August unrest. However, there are differing opinions regarding the verification methods and accuracy of those figures.
Reports published by the Bangladeshi daily Prothom Alo indicated that by the morning of August 4, 2024, approximately 200 deaths had already been reported. Widespread unrest and violent incidents occurred nationwide that day, leading to numerous casualties. However, not all of the victims were protesters. Supporters and activists of the Awami League were reportedly attacked in different parts of the country.
In several places, protesters allegedly killed individuals and publicly hanged their bodies while broadcasting the scenes live on social media. Critics argue that these acts created fear and widespread chaos. Police stations across the country were attacked, while prisons were stormed and inmates released.
Police, according to some accounts, opened fire in an effort to protect lives, public institutions, and themselves. As a result, protesters also lost their lives in some cases.
After the military intervened on August 5 and the government collapsed, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina left the country. Observers say the chaos intensified further from that day onward.
The United Nations human rights body later estimated that around 1,400 deaths had occurred by August 15. Critics argue that most of those deaths happened after the fall of the government and Sheikh Hasina’s departure.
The government has provided legal immunity to killings allegedly committed by protesters through a newly enacted law, while prosecuting only one side.
Questions Over the Legal Classification of the Violence
There is also disagreement over the legal basis for classifying the incidents as “crimes against humanity” or “genocide.”
Under international law, crimes targeting a specific community or identifiable civilian group for destruction are generally categorized as international crimes or crimes against humanity. Such crimes fall under the jurisdiction of Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973.
Critics argue that the 2024 political violence does not meet those criteria. Lawyers opposing the prosecution contend that bringing only one side before the tribunal while exempting the other side from accountability over political conflict-related deaths amounts to selective justice.
Forensic and Investigative Questions
Questions have also been raised regarding the weapons used during the violence, the types of bullets recovered, and the role of security forces.
Brigadier General (Retd.) M. Sakhawat Hussain, an adviser in Muhammad Yunus’s interim administration, stated on several occasions that 7.62 caliber bullet marks were found on the bodies of some victims. Bangladesh police do not use such ammunition, raising questions about the origin of those weapons.
Critics say demands for a proper investigation were ignored, and that no comprehensive forensic report on the weapons or bullets was produced.
Lawyers further argue that attacks on police stations, weapons looting, and other violent incidents should have been treated as major components of the investigation. Instead, they allege the government is pursuing politically motivated prosecutions aimed at suppressing opponents.
Questions Over Criminal Liability for “Knowing”
One of the central legal debates in the case is whether being aware of an incident and failing to prevent it automatically creates criminal liability.
According to general principles of international criminal law:
- Mere knowledge of a crime is not sufficient for criminal liability.
- Failure to prevent crimes creates liability only where effective control exists.
- Command responsibility must be proven.
- Deliberate negligence or directive involvement must be established.
Legal analysts argue that mere awareness alone cannot serve as sufficient grounds for criminal conviction.
They also note that Inu was not physically present at any of the locations where killings allegedly occurred and lacked the practical ability to stop clashes taking place elsewhere.
Another major point raised by the defense is that Inu was not a member of the ruling Awami League government. He belonged to a separate political party allied with the Awami League-led coalition. During the events of 2024, he held neither a ministerial nor an executive government position.
According to critics, he has instead been prosecuted under the political label of being an alleged “associate of fascism.”
The Defense Position
According to Inu’s defense lawyers:
- He had no control over administrative or security forces.
- No evidence exists of direct instructions or command responsibility.
- No forensic or technological communication evidence has been presented.
- The claim that he “could have stopped the violence” does not automatically place him within criminal liability under international law.
Therefore, they argue that the prosecution’s theory — “he knew but failed to prevent it” — is insufficient on its own to establish criminal responsibility.
Procedural Complaints and Right to Defense
The defense also claims that Inu was denied the opportunity to submit a written statement in his own defense. Additionally, a 68-page written submission was reportedly not accepted by the court.
Defense lawyers further argue that prosecutors relied heavily on political rhetoric rather than documentary evidence and substantive legal reasoning.
They warn that the verdict in this case could create a precedent for treating future political violence as international crimes.
Broader Political Context
The simultaneous prosecution of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and other pro-Liberation War political figures has intensified debate over the neutrality, standards, and application of the tribunal process.
Observers argue that when political violence is prosecuted under international crimes frameworks, issues such as evidentiary standards, effective control, and judicial neutrality become critically important.
Hasanul Haq Inu has long campaigned against crimes against humanity and strongly supported the prosecution of Jamaat-e-Islami leaders for war crimes. He was also a vocal critic of firebomb attacks and political violence attributed to BNP-Jamaat alliances.
For that reason, his lawyers claim he is now being subjected to retaliatory and one-sided justice.
Calls for Fair Justice
Hasanul Haq Inu is widely known as a freedom fighter and a longstanding political figure in Bangladesh.
Against that backdrop, his prosecution before the International Crimes Tribunal is being viewed by some observers as historically and politically sensitive. They believe the case has generated mixed public reactions regarding the credibility of the judicial process.
The legitimacy of justice, critics argue, depends on judicial transparency, strong evidentiary foundations, and procedural equality.
The short duration of hearings, controversy surrounding the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the prosecution’s reliance on the argument that “he knew, therefore he is liable” have all fueled continuing debate over the fairness of the proceedings.
Ultimately, observers say that maintaining public confidence in the justice system requires the highest standards of transparency, neutrality, and adherence to international legal norms.
The broader question now at the center of the debate is where the line should be drawn between political conflict and state repression.
