Awami League Government torturing citizens accused of colloboration
with Pak Army and International Tribunal is silently watching :
by David Bergman
ANYONE who attended the International Crimes Tribunal on April 19 must surely have come away with one image seared into their memory — that of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, dressed in an all white Panjabi being carried prostrate by six police officers into the courtroom.
The Bangladesh Nationalist Party lawmaker, accused of committing international crimes during Bangladesh's war of independence in 1971, was then laid down on four chairs in the dock.
It was not a sight that one would expect to see in any court, let alone the International Crimes Tribunal.
It should simply never have been allowed to happen.
If Chowdhury was well enough to come to court but had difficulty walking or supporting himself, then the registrar should have organised a wheelchair, which it had used previously for another accused person, to bring him to the tribunal.
If he was unable to sit up or did not want to sit up he should simply never have been brought to the court.
It surely is as clear as that.
But the manner of Chowdhury's entrance is not the only issue of concern relating to the tribunal's dealings with this particular accused man.
First of all there is the question of how it has so far dealt with Chowdhury's allegations of 'torture'.
On each of the three occasions that Chowdhury has been brought to the tribunal, he has told the three judges that he suffered 'torture' at the hands of the Rapid Action Battalion officers.
And on each of these three occasions, the tribunal has taken no action.
On April 19, although he again explained in some detail his allegations, none of the tribunal members made any comment or asked any questions about them during the proceedings.
The only reference to the allegations was contained in the tribunal's ruling which noted that Chowdhury had told the court 'something about his ill treatment to him by the law enforcing officers, after his arrest.'
There is, of course, a view that Chowdhury's allegations are just part and parcel of his political grandstanding, for which he is well known.
It may well turn out to be the case that there is no truth to the claims that he makes.
And it is also true that the alleged torture had technically occurred prior to the tribunal actually took jurisdiction over a case against him.
However, these cannot justify the tribunal's inaction on this matter.
First, Chowdhury is making allegations about an organisation with a reputation which is far from pristine.
Few will doubt that RAB is capable of doing the acts which Chowdhury accuses it — whether or not they committed them in this particular instance.
So for that reason alone, the allegations deserve serious consideration.
Secondly, it is pretty obvious that his arrest in the early hours of December 16 (after which Chowdhury alleges he was tortured) on charges related to firebombing a car, was linked to the prosecution team's attempt to arrest him in relation to ICT offences even though the actual ICT did not order its 'production warrant' until three days later.
The prosecutors had filed an application for a warrant for Chowdhury's arrest on December 15, only hours before he was picked up and allegedly tortured. He was surely arrested for the firebombing offence to make it easier for the ICT to subsequently detain him under its own orders.
So the tribunal has no excuse to ignore allegations that have been directly brought to its attention on multiple occasions by a man now detained under its jurisdiction.
The only way to find out the truth of what actually happened is for the tribunal to direct the holding of a credible inquiry — perhaps even involving the International Red Cross, a highly-respected organisation whose conclusions would be believed.
If the tribunal fails to make such a decision now, the torture allegations will continue to hang over every hearing in which Chowdhury is brought to the tribunal. He will no doubt continue to make the allegations. Is the tribunal going to simply ignore them again and again? If so, how will this make the tribunal look?
The tribunal's continued credibility requires it to take some action.
The second issue relates to Chowdhury's legal representation. He has chosen not to have a lawyer — and at the last two hearings he has told the tribunal of his decision to represent himself.
Section 17(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973 specifically states that an 'accused person shall have the right to conduct his own defence', so his decision, whether wise or not, is certainly within the court's procedures.
So why is it that the tribunal did not address the prosecution's failure to serve on Chowdhury its application to interrogate him? If the tribunal did not know that the application had not been served before the hearing, it was certainly informed by Chowdhury at the hearing itself. But the tribunal still made no comment.
When the prosecution had filed a very similar application concerning two of the Jamaat defendants, it was served on their lawyers who then filed their own counter application. Why was Chowdhury not given the same rights and opportunities?
Moreover, Chowdhury claimed during the hearing that he had not been given 'a single piece of paper' relating to his detention by the ICT. In its order of 17 January the Tribunal ordered the prosecution to serve on Chowdhury a copy of the investigation agency's report. And rule 9(2) of the Rules of Procedure states that, 'At the time of executing the warrant of arrest' a 'copy of allegations is to be served upon such person.'
Perhaps Chowdhury is not telling the truth, but surely the tribunal members needs to clarify the situation with the investigation agency and jail authorities.
Since Chowdhury has made it clear on a number of occasions to the tribunal that he is representing himself, it needs to treat him accordingly and given him all the rights due to him — including documentation, copies of relevant applications, and the opportunity to file his own applications.
Thirdly, one must say a few words about the order given by the tribunal on April 19.
The issue before the court was an application by the prosecution to interrogate Chowdhury for three days in the custody of the investigation agency — a very similar application that it had made in relation to two other accused.
In relation to those applications, the Tribunal initially directed that a one day interrogation should take place in Dhaka Central Jail. However, upon receipt of a letter from the jail authorities stating that it did not have the space to carry out such interrogations, the tribunal revised its order and allowed the interrogation to take place in the custody of the investigation agency.
It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that prior to its decision on April 19 the tribunal's view was that an interrogation should in principle take place inside the prison unless the jail has insufficient space.
Yet, on April 19, the tribunal passed an order that Chowdhury's interrogation should take place in the investigation agency's custody even though there was no information before the court claiming that the jail in which Chowdhury was detained was too small to allow for an interrogation.
In fact, the only relevant information it had received was from Chowdhury himself who said during the hearing, 'There is no question of lack of space. I am in a three-storey building, in solitary confinement. There is a lot of space.'
The text of the tribunal's order did not mention this particular claim by Chowdhury and gave no explanation about why, this time around, the space in the jail was not a relevant criterion to the location of the interrogation.
Perhaps, the tribunal had good reasons to change the rationale for allowing interrogation to take place in the investigators' custody. The problem is that this is not clear from the order.
The tribunal order also made some comments about Chowdhury's demeanor in court — and it is certainly fair to say that this changed significantly during the proceedings.
From first looking like a man who was at death's door, he was suddenly able to sit up and speak loudly, and indeed shout.
This may well have been sufficient evidence for the tribunal to conclude that Chowdhury had been exaggerating his illness, but the tribunal went further than that and said, 'It is a fact that he was brought here from Kashimpur jail and his health was okay…. He was pretending to be sick and not actually sick.'
How did the tribunal know his state of health whilst in the prison? No statement was made by anyone in court. If the tribunal members were given this information privately by the jail authorities, Chowdhury was certainly not given any opportunity to respond to it.
It is also difficult to see how the tribunal can make its categorical statement about Chowdhury's state of health. The tribunal did not have any of Chowdhury's medical records and there was certainly no doctor present in court who gave that evidence.
Of course, none of the above can exonerate Chowdhury's behaviour in court on April 19.
Whilst at first he spoke in a controlled manner, he subsequently started to shout and rant. No doubt he considers his detention a terrible injustice and the tribunal has no legitimacy, but this is no way to respond. The tribunal is absolutely within its rights to consider his outbursts unacceptable and to deal with them strictly.
Allegations claiming that Chowdhury was involved in crimes during the 1971 war have been longstanding. This is not to say that they are true, but they certainly make him a legitimate target for the prosecution.
However, now that he has been arrested, it is important that—as with all the other main accused—the tribunal ensure that its procedure, processes and conduct, and the manner in which it makes decisions, are above reproach.
It does appear from the proceedings that the tribunal is doing its best to be fair. Even if, for example, questions remain about the rationale for the tribunal's decision to rule that Chowdhury should be interrogated outside prison, it is important to note that its ruling has laid down protections—which is unusual in this country's judicial practice—that should ensure that he will not be improperly treated whilst being questioned.
But at the same time, being an International Crimes Tribunal, it has to get used to being judged to standards that other courts in Bangladesh are not used to.
That being so, it is important that the tribunal revisit how it has handled a number of issues relating to Chowdhury's pre-trial detention.
Its prestige can only gain by doing so.
Link
with Pak Army and International Tribunal is silently watching :
by David Bergman
ANYONE who attended the International Crimes Tribunal on April 19 must surely have come away with one image seared into their memory — that of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, dressed in an all white Panjabi being carried prostrate by six police officers into the courtroom.
The Bangladesh Nationalist Party lawmaker, accused of committing international crimes during Bangladesh's war of independence in 1971, was then laid down on four chairs in the dock.
It was not a sight that one would expect to see in any court, let alone the International Crimes Tribunal.
It should simply never have been allowed to happen.
If Chowdhury was well enough to come to court but had difficulty walking or supporting himself, then the registrar should have organised a wheelchair, which it had used previously for another accused person, to bring him to the tribunal.
If he was unable to sit up or did not want to sit up he should simply never have been brought to the court.
It surely is as clear as that.
But the manner of Chowdhury's entrance is not the only issue of concern relating to the tribunal's dealings with this particular accused man.
First of all there is the question of how it has so far dealt with Chowdhury's allegations of 'torture'.
On each of the three occasions that Chowdhury has been brought to the tribunal, he has told the three judges that he suffered 'torture' at the hands of the Rapid Action Battalion officers.
And on each of these three occasions, the tribunal has taken no action.
On April 19, although he again explained in some detail his allegations, none of the tribunal members made any comment or asked any questions about them during the proceedings.
The only reference to the allegations was contained in the tribunal's ruling which noted that Chowdhury had told the court 'something about his ill treatment to him by the law enforcing officers, after his arrest.'
There is, of course, a view that Chowdhury's allegations are just part and parcel of his political grandstanding, for which he is well known.
It may well turn out to be the case that there is no truth to the claims that he makes.
And it is also true that the alleged torture had technically occurred prior to the tribunal actually took jurisdiction over a case against him.
However, these cannot justify the tribunal's inaction on this matter.
First, Chowdhury is making allegations about an organisation with a reputation which is far from pristine.
Few will doubt that RAB is capable of doing the acts which Chowdhury accuses it — whether or not they committed them in this particular instance.
So for that reason alone, the allegations deserve serious consideration.
Secondly, it is pretty obvious that his arrest in the early hours of December 16 (after which Chowdhury alleges he was tortured) on charges related to firebombing a car, was linked to the prosecution team's attempt to arrest him in relation to ICT offences even though the actual ICT did not order its 'production warrant' until three days later.
The prosecutors had filed an application for a warrant for Chowdhury's arrest on December 15, only hours before he was picked up and allegedly tortured. He was surely arrested for the firebombing offence to make it easier for the ICT to subsequently detain him under its own orders.
So the tribunal has no excuse to ignore allegations that have been directly brought to its attention on multiple occasions by a man now detained under its jurisdiction.
The only way to find out the truth of what actually happened is for the tribunal to direct the holding of a credible inquiry — perhaps even involving the International Red Cross, a highly-respected organisation whose conclusions would be believed.
If the tribunal fails to make such a decision now, the torture allegations will continue to hang over every hearing in which Chowdhury is brought to the tribunal. He will no doubt continue to make the allegations. Is the tribunal going to simply ignore them again and again? If so, how will this make the tribunal look?
The tribunal's continued credibility requires it to take some action.
The second issue relates to Chowdhury's legal representation. He has chosen not to have a lawyer — and at the last two hearings he has told the tribunal of his decision to represent himself.
Section 17(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973 specifically states that an 'accused person shall have the right to conduct his own defence', so his decision, whether wise or not, is certainly within the court's procedures.
So why is it that the tribunal did not address the prosecution's failure to serve on Chowdhury its application to interrogate him? If the tribunal did not know that the application had not been served before the hearing, it was certainly informed by Chowdhury at the hearing itself. But the tribunal still made no comment.
When the prosecution had filed a very similar application concerning two of the Jamaat defendants, it was served on their lawyers who then filed their own counter application. Why was Chowdhury not given the same rights and opportunities?
Moreover, Chowdhury claimed during the hearing that he had not been given 'a single piece of paper' relating to his detention by the ICT. In its order of 17 January the Tribunal ordered the prosecution to serve on Chowdhury a copy of the investigation agency's report. And rule 9(2) of the Rules of Procedure states that, 'At the time of executing the warrant of arrest' a 'copy of allegations is to be served upon such person.'
Perhaps Chowdhury is not telling the truth, but surely the tribunal members needs to clarify the situation with the investigation agency and jail authorities.
Since Chowdhury has made it clear on a number of occasions to the tribunal that he is representing himself, it needs to treat him accordingly and given him all the rights due to him — including documentation, copies of relevant applications, and the opportunity to file his own applications.
Thirdly, one must say a few words about the order given by the tribunal on April 19.
The issue before the court was an application by the prosecution to interrogate Chowdhury for three days in the custody of the investigation agency — a very similar application that it had made in relation to two other accused.
In relation to those applications, the Tribunal initially directed that a one day interrogation should take place in Dhaka Central Jail. However, upon receipt of a letter from the jail authorities stating that it did not have the space to carry out such interrogations, the tribunal revised its order and allowed the interrogation to take place in the custody of the investigation agency.
It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that prior to its decision on April 19 the tribunal's view was that an interrogation should in principle take place inside the prison unless the jail has insufficient space.
Yet, on April 19, the tribunal passed an order that Chowdhury's interrogation should take place in the investigation agency's custody even though there was no information before the court claiming that the jail in which Chowdhury was detained was too small to allow for an interrogation.
In fact, the only relevant information it had received was from Chowdhury himself who said during the hearing, 'There is no question of lack of space. I am in a three-storey building, in solitary confinement. There is a lot of space.'
The text of the tribunal's order did not mention this particular claim by Chowdhury and gave no explanation about why, this time around, the space in the jail was not a relevant criterion to the location of the interrogation.
Perhaps, the tribunal had good reasons to change the rationale for allowing interrogation to take place in the investigators' custody. The problem is that this is not clear from the order.
The tribunal order also made some comments about Chowdhury's demeanor in court — and it is certainly fair to say that this changed significantly during the proceedings.
From first looking like a man who was at death's door, he was suddenly able to sit up and speak loudly, and indeed shout.
This may well have been sufficient evidence for the tribunal to conclude that Chowdhury had been exaggerating his illness, but the tribunal went further than that and said, 'It is a fact that he was brought here from Kashimpur jail and his health was okay…. He was pretending to be sick and not actually sick.'
How did the tribunal know his state of health whilst in the prison? No statement was made by anyone in court. If the tribunal members were given this information privately by the jail authorities, Chowdhury was certainly not given any opportunity to respond to it.
It is also difficult to see how the tribunal can make its categorical statement about Chowdhury's state of health. The tribunal did not have any of Chowdhury's medical records and there was certainly no doctor present in court who gave that evidence.
Of course, none of the above can exonerate Chowdhury's behaviour in court on April 19.
Whilst at first he spoke in a controlled manner, he subsequently started to shout and rant. No doubt he considers his detention a terrible injustice and the tribunal has no legitimacy, but this is no way to respond. The tribunal is absolutely within its rights to consider his outbursts unacceptable and to deal with them strictly.
Allegations claiming that Chowdhury was involved in crimes during the 1971 war have been longstanding. This is not to say that they are true, but they certainly make him a legitimate target for the prosecution.
However, now that he has been arrested, it is important that—as with all the other main accused—the tribunal ensure that its procedure, processes and conduct, and the manner in which it makes decisions, are above reproach.
It does appear from the proceedings that the tribunal is doing its best to be fair. Even if, for example, questions remain about the rationale for the tribunal's decision to rule that Chowdhury should be interrogated outside prison, it is important to note that its ruling has laid down protections—which is unusual in this country's judicial practice—that should ensure that he will not be improperly treated whilst being questioned.
But at the same time, being an International Crimes Tribunal, it has to get used to being judged to standards that other courts in Bangladesh are not used to.
That being so, it is important that the tribunal revisit how it has handled a number of issues relating to Chowdhury's pre-trial detention.
Its prestige can only gain by doing so.
Link
__._,_.___
My-Diary is a friendly forum and you can share attractive, motivating, appealing, exciting, fascinating stuff from your "Personal Diary". Medium of communication can be English, Urdu or Punjabi (Plain or Roman Text).
Kindly use My-Diary@yahoogroups.com for sending emails at My-Diary Group.
The theme of this group is to socializing about Islamic values along with promoting inspirational thoughts share some motivating, appealing, fascinating stuff with other by keeping code of conduct basic moral values for this group.
My-Diary Group encourages the sharing of English, Urdu and Punjabi literature. Along with that being part of this forum you will have right to address social issues and discuss anything that concerns life, people and society. My-Diary facilitates free flow of ideas and freedom of expression. It also affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Forum offers to assist individuals to host events promoting Pakistani/Indian/Urdu/Punjabi literature, culture and personalities.
Sure! My-Diary will turn out to be special group with your help and support.
Group Email Addresses
Post message: My-Diary@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: My-Diary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: My-Diary-owner@yahoogroups.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|| My-Diary |||| Living together is an art || Current Group Rank is 23 in 2648 Pakistani Groups ||
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My-Diary Group Home Page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/My-Diary/
My-Diary Google Site: http://sites.google.com/site/mydiarygroupsite/
My-Diary Blog: http://mydiaryblogsite.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kindly use My-Diary@yahoogroups.com for sending emails at My-Diary Group.
The theme of this group is to socializing about Islamic values along with promoting inspirational thoughts share some motivating, appealing, fascinating stuff with other by keeping code of conduct basic moral values for this group.
My-Diary Group encourages the sharing of English, Urdu and Punjabi literature. Along with that being part of this forum you will have right to address social issues and discuss anything that concerns life, people and society. My-Diary facilitates free flow of ideas and freedom of expression. It also affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Forum offers to assist individuals to host events promoting Pakistani/Indian/Urdu/Punjabi literature, culture and personalities.
Sure! My-Diary will turn out to be special group with your help and support.
Group Email Addresses
Post message: My-Diary@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: My-Diary-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: My-Diary-owner@yahoogroups.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|| My-Diary |||| Living together is an art || Current Group Rank is 23 in 2648 Pakistani Groups ||
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My-Diary Group Home Page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/My-Diary/
My-Diary Google Site: http://sites.google.com/site/mydiarygroupsite/
My-Diary Blog: http://mydiaryblogsite.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment