হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের বিরুদ্ধে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের অভিযোগ দাখিল (বিস্তারিত অভিযোগনামা)
এইদেশ ডেস্ক, মঙ্গলবার, আগস্ট ২০, ২০১৩


গোলাম আযমের বিচারকে ‘ত্রুটিপূর্ণ’ এবং বিচারকদের ‘পক্ষপাতদুষ্ট’ বলায় যুক্তরাষ্ট্রভিত্তিক মানবাধিকার সংস্থা হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের (এইচআরডব্লিউ) বিরুদ্ধে আদালত অবমাননার অভিযোগ এনেছে আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনালের প্রসিকিউশন। ইংরেজিতে উত্থাপিত রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের এই অভিযোগনামাটি এখানে পুরোটি তুলে দেয়া হলো।


IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES TRIBUNAL-1, DHAKA.
ICT – BD MISC. PETITION NO. ....... OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
A petition for contempt under section
11(4) of the International Crimes
(Tribunals) Act, 1973, read with Rule 45
of the International Crimes (Tribunal-1)
Rules of Procedure, 2010.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Chief Prosecutor
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Human Rights Watch, represented by
its Board of Directors, 350 Fifth Avenue,
34th Floor, New York, NY 10118-3299
USA.
- 2 -
2. Mr. Brad Adams, Executive Director,
Asia Division, Human Rights Watch, 100
Bush Street, Suit 925, San Francisco, CA
94104, USA.
3. Mr. Storm Tiv, Associate, Asia
Division, Human Rights Watch, 1630
Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500,
Washington, D.C. 20009.
...Opposite Parties
The humble petition on behalf of the
Petitioner above named most respectfully:
SHEWETH:
1. That on 15th July 2013, the Hon’ble International Crimes Tribunal
No. 1 of Bangladesh delivered its judgment in the Chief Prosecutor
versus Professor Ghulam Azam, ICT-BD Case No. 06 of 2011
(henceforth, Azam Case) and sentenced him for 90 years of
imprisonment since he was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt,
for the offences, under section 3(2) of the International Crimes
- 3 -
(Tribunals) Act, 1973 (henceforth, the 1973 Act), committed by
him in 1971.
2. That the Appeals of the Azam Case against the conviction and
sentencing are now pending before the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
3. That on 16th August 2013, Opposite Party No. 1, an international
NGO, namely – Human Rights Watch, its Head Office being in 350
Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10118-3299 USA,
originated an article written by the Opposite Party No. 3, namely
one Storm Tiv, an Associate of Asia Division, Human Rights
Watch, his working address being 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20009, under the direct supervision of
Opposite Party No. 2, namely Mr. Brad Adams, Executive Director,
Asia Division, Human Rights Watch, his working address being
100 Bush Street, Suit 925, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA. The
said article was published via Opposite Party No.1’s worldwide
official website (http://www.hrw.org) with the following caption:
“Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on Flawed Proceedings:
- 4 -
Analysis Outlines how Fair Trial Rights of Accused Seriously
Compromised”.
That the said article is attached herewith and marked as, Annexure-
A.
4. That in the said article dated 16th August, 2013, the Opposite Party
No. 1 with bias and mala fide intention most unethically
commented, while the Appeals are pending before the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, on the Professor
Ghulam Azam’s trial proceeding at this Hon’ble Tribunal and the
evidential issues of the same case.
5. That in the said scandalising article, the Opposite Party No. 1
alleged, inter alia, that –
(a) Judges of this Hon’ble Tribunal improperly conducted an
investigation on behalf of the prosecution in the Azam
Case;
(b) There was collusion and biasness among prosecutors and
judges in the Azam Case;
- 5 -
(c) The Tribunal failed to take steps to protect defense
witnesses of the Azam Case,
(d) There were changes in the judicial panel during trial of the
Azam Case; and
(e) There was lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt in the Azam Case.
6. That the Petitioner concedes that issues relating to above mentioned
allegation (e) are clearly a matter sub-judice and issues relating to
allegations (c) and (d) are of no relevance to the Petitioner and as
such, the Petitioner does not at all rest his prayer on issues relating
to allegations (c), (d) and (e).
7. That the petitioner submits that statements made in reference with
the issues relating to above mentioned allegation (a) and (b) are
biased, baseless, utterly false and fabricated, ill-motivated, and are
not made in good faith. Such statements were made only to
scandalize this Hon’ble Tribunal and its process (by exercising its
independent judicial functions and also fair trial) and to undermine
- 6 -
the confidence of the people in the integrity of this Hon’ble
Tribunal and its process.
8. That the Petitioner therefore prays, relying upon issues relating to
above mentioned allegations (a) and (b) only, that this Hon’ble
Tribunal may issue an order of contempt against the above-
mentioned opposite parties under section 11(4) of the International
Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, read with Rule 45 of the
International Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure, 2010.
I Applicable Laws
9. That section 11(4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,
1973 states that:
‘A Tribunal may punish any person, who obstructs or abuses
its process or disobeys any of its orders or directions, or does
anything which tends to prejudice the case of a party before
it, or tends to bring it or any of its members into hatred or
contempt, or does anything which constitutes contempt of the
Tribunal, with simple imprisonment which may extend to one
- 7 -
year, or with fine which extent to Taka five thousand, or with
both.’
10. That moreover, Rule 45 of the International Crimes (Tribunal-1)
Rules of Procedure, 2010 states that:
‘In pursuance of section 11(4) of the Act, the Tribunal may
draw a proceeding against any person who obstructs or
abuses the process of the Tribunal, or disobeys any of its
order or direction of the Tribunal, or who does anything
which tends to prejudice the case of a party before the
Tribunal, or tends to bring the Tribunal or any of its
members into hatred or contempt, or does anything which
constitutes contempt of the Tribunal.’
II Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal
11. That the Petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Tribunal has
jurisdiction over the relevant matter and the parties.
12. That the Petitioner humbly submits that under section 11 (4) of the
1973 Act, this Hon’ble tribunal is empowered to punish ‘any
person’, which includes both natural and legal person, whether
- 8 -
living in Bangladesh or abroad, who ‘tends to bring it or any of its
members into hatred or contempt’ and/or ‘does anything which
constitutes contempt of the Tribunal’ .
13. That the Petitioner humbly submits that the above-mentioned
opposite parties, by publishing the said article through its
worldwide website and thereby scandalising this Hon’ble Tribunal,
either have ‘tended’ to bring this Hon’ble Tribunal into hatred or
contempt and/or have ‘done’ an act which constitutes contempt of
the Tribunal. ’
14. That, therefore, this Hon’ble Tribunal has jurisdiction over the
relevant matter and the parties under section 11(4) of the 1973 Act,
read with Rule 45 of the International Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of
Procedure, 2010.
III Background of the Opposite Parties
15. That Opposite Party No 1 is an US based international human rights
organization which has been in operation for the last 30 years or so.
In its official website, at http://www.hrw.org/about, it claims to be
‘one of the world’s leading independent organizations dedicated to
- 9 -
defending and protecting human rights’. It further claims that by
focusing international attention where human rights are violated, it
‘gives voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for
their crimes’.
16. That the Opposite Party No 1 has been vehemently criticized
worldwide for its motvated activities as a human rights
organization. Some of the major allegations against the Opposite
Party No 1 include, inter alia:
(a) allegations of poor research and inaccuracy;
(b) allegations of selection bias;
(c) allegations of ideological bias;
(d) allegations of unethical fund raising policies;
(e) allegations of bias for or against particular nations;
(f) allegations of appointing Nazi policy supporters (such as, Mr. Marc
Garlasco) as investigator to report on war crimes and crimes against
humanity;
- 10 -
(g) allegations of appointing (pro-US) terrorists (such as, Mr. Shawan
Jabrain) to its Advisory Board; and
(h) allegations of publicly supporting CIA’s illegal actions of
extraordinary rendition towards suspected (anti-US) terrorists.
17. That a wide number of reports, research publications, open letters of
scholars etc. evidences the unethical and motivated role played by
the Opposite Party No 1 in various parts of the world by its
unreliable, uncredited, inaccurate and bias reports and findings on
human rights matters. Even, the insiders like Mr. Robert L
Bernstein, a founder and former chairman of the Opposite Party
No1 has publicly blamed the Opposite Party for its unethical and
motivated activities.
IV Contemptuous Issues
18. That in the above mentioned scandalous report, originated by the
Opposite Parties, alleges that judges of this Hon’ble Tribunal
improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution
in the Azam Case.
- 11 -
19. That the Petitioner submits that there is absolutely no base for
bringing such scandalising allegation upon this Hon’ble Tribunal.
The Petitioner also denies that there was ever any such request
made by the prosecution in the Azam Case. Further, the judgement
of the Azam Case does not at all endorse any such investigation
being done by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
20. That the Petitioner submits that such allegation made by the Opposite
Parties are baseless, complete distortion of facts, ill-motivated and
as such, unreliable. These statements were made merely to
scadalize this Hon’ble Tribunal and its process. Also, the statements
were made not in good faith and as such, tantamount to contempt of
this Honorable Tribunal.
21. That further in the above mentioned scandalous report, originated
by the the Opposite Parties, alleges that there was collusion and
biasness among prosecutors and judges in the Azam Case.
22. That the Petitioner submits that there is absolutely no base for
bringing such scandalising allegation upon this Hon’ble Tribunal.
The petitioner also denies that there was ever any unholy or discrete
- 12 -
association between this Hon’ble Tribunal and the prosecution.
These statements were made merely to scadalize this Hon’ble
Tribunal and its process. Also, the statements were made not in
good faith and as such, tantamount to contempt of this Honorable
Tribunal.
23. That the only reference made by the Opposite Parties to its finding
of collusion and biasness among prosecutors and judges in the
Azam Case was an alleged skype communication between a member
of the bench with his acquaintence at a very personal level. The
Petitioner concedes that the said member of the bench did
voluntarily resign to avoid any unwanted controversy. However, the
Petitioner submits that no inquiry, whether legal, social or technical,
was ever made to find the authenticity of the said skype
communication and as such, the existence, let alone, content of the
skype communication, can not be relied upon to allege a collusion
and biasness among prosecutors and judges in the Azam Case.
V Lack of Good Faith
- 13 -
24. That the Petitioner submits that the allegations (a) and (b) made in
the scandalous article originated and published by the Opposite
Parties lack ‘good faith’ on the part of the Opposite Parties. This is
because:
i. For that the false and unreliable statements made in
allegations (a) and (b) contained in the scandalous report
of the Opposite Parties have unnecessarily questioned the
image, standing and reputation of this Hon’ble Tribunal
and as such, scandalized this Hon’ble Tribunal;
ii. For that the Opposite Parties have never carried on any
independent investigation/research/inquiry to make such
scandalous remarks contained in allegations (a) and (b)
about this Hon’ble Tribunal and its process;
iii. For that the statements were inaccurate as it does not rely
upon any reliable authority or in that matter any authority
at all;
iv. For that the Opposite Parties, claiming to be an
independent trial observer of the ICT BD, has never
- 14 -
personally attended through any of its member or
representative to observe a single trial of this Hon’ble
Tribunal whether in Azam Case or other;
v. For that the false and unreliable statements made in
allegations (a) and (b) contained in the scandalous report
of the Opposite Parties are made long after
pronouncement of the judgment of the Azam Case
especially, when the Appeal of the Azam Case is pending
before the Hon’ble Appelate Division of the Supreme
Court of Bangladesh;
vi. For that the Opposite Parties are in a chronic habit of
publishing reports relying upon poor research and
inaccurate facts;
vii. For that the Opposite Parties are in a chronic habit of
exercising selection and ideological bias;
viii. For that the Opposite Parties are in the habit of following
unethical, immoral and undisclosed financial policies;
- 15 -
ix. For that the Opposite Parties are heavily dependent upon
their undisclosed donor (private persons and private
organizations) driven fund and as such, committed to
fulfill the agenda of such undisclosed donors;
x. For that the Opposite Parties do not practice any ethical
standard in its recruitment policies and even go a long
way to accommodate terrorists and human rights violators
in their board;
xi. For that the Opposite Parties have illegally intervened in
the judicial process of a sovereign country and tried to
assassin the image of the entire process of trial of war
criminals at the ICT BD and the judicial system, in
general, of Bangladesh;
xii. For that the Opposite Parties have wrongfully exercised
their ‘freedom of expression’ as guranteed under Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
and Article 13 of the American Convention of Human
- 16 -
Rights, 1969 and as such, an contempt rule upon them
shall not merit any ‘chilling effect’;
xiii. For that the Opposite Parties have violated all norms of
journalistic morality as expected under the international
law;
xiv. For that the Opposite Parties under the veil of an human
rights organization cannot become a partisan to a human
rights issue simply because their undisclosed donors
demand so;
xv. Finally, for that, statements made at allegations (a) and (b)
contained in the scandalous report of the Opposite Parties
do not only attract the provisions of section 11(4) of the
1973 Act but also, the rules and practices of the
international law.
VI PRAYER
25. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may
kindly:
- 17 -
(a) issue a contempt notice stating that why a contempt proceedings
should not be initiated against the Opposite Parties in exercise
of power of this Hon’ble Tribunal under section 11(4) of the
International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, read with Rule 45
of the International Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure,
2010;
(b) upon hearing, convict the Opposite Parties under section 11(4)
of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, read with
Rule 45 of the International Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of
Procedure, 2010 for publishing an article dated 16.08.2013
(Annexure – A) through its worldwide website and thereby
scandalising this Hon’ble Tribunal by biased, baseless, false and
fabricated and mala fide publication (Annexure –A), and as
such, have either ‘tended’ to bring this Hon’ble Tribunal into
hatred or contempt and/or have ‘done’ an act which constitutes
contempt of the Tribunal ’;
- 18 -
(c) To stay further display, publication, circulation or use in any
matter or in any other form of the scandalous Article dated
16.08.2013 (Annexure-A)
(d) upon conviction, sentence the Opposite Parties, with
imprisonment of one year and/or adequate fine and forward and
notify for the execution of the same to the competent state, i.e.,
USA through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
(e) issue any other order(s) or direction(s) that this Hon’ble
Tribunal deems fit and proper for the interest of justice.