Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi I have stated in the previous article that another article would follow soon to complete the reply for the cheap and misleading lies that contain in the article, which was published by Pritom Das in an online newspaper from Bangladesh. His article was a reply to my articles that was published in this newspaper. In those articles, my focus was on the irrelevance of re-activating the war crimes tribunal law. The law was actually issued 40 years ago to try some Pakistani soldiers accused of committing crimes against humanity during the civil war that ended with the intervention of India and the formation of Bangladesh. However, this law is being misused now in order to settle political scores with some rivals of the ruling Awami League party. In his article, Pritom Das blasted my articles as ‘Luxury of lies' and accused me of ‘twisting history and fabricating facts.' Truly speaking, I am not the only person who has written about the shameful aspect of this law and inappropriateness of it being re-activated at this time. This is mainly because of the fact that those who face trial at present under this law were not among those who were detained over the past four decades. Apart from this, no charges of war crimes were framed against them during the period. This emphasizes the fact that their detention at present is simply a political detention and their trial is also a political one. Even before my articles were published, there were many individuals and organizations that came forward to criticize these trials. Almost all international human rights organizations have emphasized the fact that the war crimes tribunal failed to meet even the basic international criteria and they are incompatible with the international law. Therefore, the tribunal has a mysterious and incomprehensible role to play as mentioned by the renowned international lawyer Toby Cadman. There were several cheap and misleading lies in the article by Pritom Das. He says that the war crimes trials are nothing to do with religion or politics, and those who face trial now would have been tried before 40 years for their crimes. But he was not saying why they had not been put to trial during the period of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? Why didn't they have detained together with those who were under detention at that time as per the law to deal with collaborators of the Pakistan Army? Even these detainees were released later. What was the reason for not trying them when the Awami League came to power in 1996 with the support of some other parties? These parties allied with the Awami League against the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and boycotted en masse the elections held by BNP and that forced the party to accept the demand for holding elections under the caretaker government. Apart from this, even Awami League and BNP allied to oust the military ruler Gen. H. M. Ershad. How was it possible for them to come under one alliance if they had any doubts or allegations against those who were around them? Who will endorse the fact that the allies of yesterday have become accused and convicted today? All indications point to the ruling party's hidden agenda to eliminate political rivals by any means. Another lie of Pritom Das was unearthed when he pointed to the Skype scandal, saying that the judge's act of seeking the help of the staffers at his office, including the lawyer Ahmed Bahauddin, was a normal affair. If it is so, then what prompted the presiding judge to tender his resignation after The Economist magazine shed light on the scandal and the court's summoning of two of its reporters? Then, how is it that it became a simple and normal affair? The editor in chief of The Economist disclosed that they would not have published the report if it was a normal affair but instead they were forced to publish it so as to serve public interests in terms of protecting the lives of some people as well as the reputation of the judiciary. The editor in chief of the magazine also said that they would have announced details about sources of the scandal in normal situation but what prevented them from doing so was to protect these sources from potential dangers posed by the authorities and the tribunal itself. The editor in chief also mentioned about the prosecution witness who switched over to the defense side and therefore, he was abducted when he arrived at the court. He also explained that they are not bothered about whether the defendants are innocents or offenders but their only concern was to ensure a just and fair trial for the accused. Another lie from Pritom Das was that people from all parts of the world, including Pakistan, are seeking to expedite the trial while some others and I were working to obstruct justice. What a lie it is! He cited the example of a Pakistani national living in Sweden but even in this case, there was no demand for holding such a politicized mock trial. As for me and other writers, we are against such mock trials as mentioned by him. We demand just and transparent trial that meets the international criteria and subjected to the international law and not associated with any jungle law. We are against the trial in which the judge and the public prosecutor accept dictates from a so called legal expert living in Belgium and he is infamous for his position against the accused. How can we expect justice from a judge who is receiving instructions from such a prejudiced lawyer as it was revealed from the 17-hour Skype conversation and through having 230 e-mail messages with a person who was nothing to do with the court. The Skype scandal sparked worldwide outcry and that eventually resulted in the resignation of the presiding judge. On the domestic front, former Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Moudud Ahmed was among those who demanded that this judge no longer hold any position in the judiciary because of his breach of trust. I also wanted to remind Pritom Das that there were many prominent figures and international and local human rights and legislative bodies such as the US ambassador for human rights, UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the British House of Lords, which aired the same voice of concern, as mine, on the issue. All of these organizations have criticized the tribunal, saying that its functioning is not in line with either the local or the international law and hence it obstructs justice. They are of the view that the tribunal is working to create division in the country without serving any of the country's public interests.
