Former Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina and her colleagues' conviction is a farce, miscarriage of justice for victims as real perpetrators not be being punished

The conviction of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal with death and former inspector general of police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun with five years’ imprisonment by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal is a political farce, does not meet basic international standards for fair trial, and is a miscarriage of justice for the victims, stated the Rights and Risks Analysis Group (RRAG).

“The trial of Sheikh Hasina in abstention violates the basic international human rights standards on fair trial. The Interim Government of Bangladesh did not follow up extradition of Sheikh Hasina with India. If Bangladesh had any evidence, it could have filed petition before the India’s Supreme Court seeking Hasina’s extradition. Any country that follows the rule of law has to seek extradition of the accused to meet fair trial standards, just the way India fought for extradition of Abu Salem before the Supreme Court of Portugal and is currently fighting for extradition of Mehul Choksi in the courts in Belgium. Because Bangladesh does not have any evidence and therefore, it decided to sentence Prime Minister Hasina and her colleagues in a Kangaroo Court trial.”- stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of the Rights and Risks Analysis Group.

“Among others, former PM Hasina was accused of the murder of Abu Sayed near Begum Rokeya University in Rangpur, murder of six unarmed protesters in Dhaka's Chankharpul and six students at Ashulia last year. How could Prime Minister Hasina be charged without the actual perpetrators of these crimes being even named in the chargesheet? Former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun cannot be the approver for these crimes as he was not present in the crime scenes.” – also stated Mr Chakma.

During the description of the evidence today while delivering the verdict, Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal referred to the reports of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, BBC etc as evidence.

“The reports of the OHCHR, HRW or BBC per se cannot be evidence unless testified by their representatives with corroborative evidence to substantiate the contention in the reports, more so while awarding death sentence. The testimonies of these witnesses or cross examination of these witnesses have not taken place during the trial. The trial is also miscarriage of justice for the victims because the real perpetrators are not being punished.” – further stated Mr Chakma.