I was astonished to read the rejoinder of the Bangladesh Embassy in Riyadh to my article titled “Execution of Abdul Quader Molla after an unjust trial,” which appeared in this newspaper on Dec. 18. The embassy accused me of opting to present the issue in a biased and misleading way. I wish to clarify some points so that readers can decide for themselves who is deliberately misleading and distorting facts and mixing up things that are not supposed to be mixed up. 1. My article was based on facts, realties and events that were ignored by the embassy, which did not discuss any one of them. On the other hand, it repeated the mind-numbing words, articulated frequently by Bangladesh officials, that these trials were apolitical. I had also drawn attention to the positions taken by and the criticism raised by international human rights organizations, especially the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UN Human Rights Council, International Bar Association and the Britain's House of Lords, in addition to several prominent figures. All of these organization lashed out at these courts, emphasizing that they did not live up to the international standards that are supposed to be followed in such situations. 2. The embassy has repeated that Molla was tried by the International Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh. I wonder how this tribunal can be called "international" when, as everybody knows, it contains not a single element that makes it international, whether it be an international judge, prosecutor or lawyer. At the same time, the Bangladesh government denied permission for the entry of an international lawyer, specialized in war crimes cases, to observe the trial. Under these circumstances, how can it be an international tribunal? 3. The trial proceedings of Molla did not last for three years as claimed by the embassy's rejoinder. In fact, Molla was put behind bars for three years until he was executed. He was detained in July 2010 and remained in prison for two years without facing any charges. On 23 November 2011, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention took a decision (No. 66/2011) to the effect that the denial of freedom to Abdul Quader Molla could be considered as an arbitrary act and that it amounted to a breach of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 9 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. 4. On 28 May 2012, six charges were made to the tribunal against Molla and these charges were grave and pertained to crimes against humanity allegedly committed by him during the year 1971. On 3 February 2013, the tribunal found Molla guilty of five of the six charges and that was six months after the start of the trial. Moreover, the trial itself was marred by a lot of controversies because of its failure to safeguard the most basic rights of a fair trial. As for the charges, they were vague and ambiguous, lacking any precision and clarity. This made it impossible for the lawyers to comprehend the charges against their clients. Similarly, some of the crimes mentioned in the indictment do not come under the purview of the International Crimes Act. 5. The defense team repeatedly called for more time to study and examine the charges framed against their client. But all their requests were rejected on a routine basis and they were not allowed to contact Molla separately, thus making it impossible to receive any instructions from him. 6. It was clear during the proceedings that it was far from being an impartial and open trial. The tribunal itself was constituted in response to the electoral promises made by Sheikh Hasina to some of her supporters as well as to those who made an alliance with her. 7. While denying that the trial was political in nature, the embassy also stated that it was skeptical about the stature of Molla as one of the opposition leaders. However, it was not in a position to deny the fact that Molla was the deputy secretary general of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, which is part of the opposition alliance. Similarly, all those who face trial in front of this court, which is ambiguous in nature without applying any international or local standards, are victims of a politically-motivated trial. As everyone knows, the objective is to get rid of political opponents. 8. The political agenda of the trial was obvious from the scandals that accompanied these trials when the judiciary connived with the prosecution and government, as well as with a third party from outside the country. According to the British magazine The Economist, the Skype conversations and the e-mail messages exchanged between these parties pointed to the well-thought-out plans and moves to identify prosecution witnesses as well as to provide them with advice in order to weaken the position of the defense team. All of these also indicated the specific arrangements that were made to prepare prosecution witnesses so as to make the work of the prosecution easier. 9. After the completion of the trial, the tribunal sentenced Molla to life imprisonment. But some supporters of the government were not satisfied with the verdict and hence they demanded a more stringent punishment. This encouraged the prosecution to expedite the procedures to approach the Supreme Court with an appeal. Even though there is no provision in tribunal law to appeal a verdict, the government summarily issued a law, with retrospective effect, allowing the prosecution to appeal the verdict. On the basis of this law, the Supreme Court sentenced Molla to death on 17 September 2013 and consequently Molla was executed on 12 December 2013 without a fair trial. 10. Any legislation, which was made retroactively and leads to the death penalty, violates the fundamentals of international law. Similarly, the issuance of a death sentence without granting the convict his right to appeal contravenes the concept of a fair trial based on international standards. Even though the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority, Molla was not given a chance to appeal the verdict. The defense lawyer urged the court to review the verdict as the last resort to stop Molla's execution because there was no provision in the newly enacted law to appeal the verdict contrary to the international criteria for a fair trial, but the Supreme Court rejected the lawyer's request after two hours of deliberation. 11. It is clear from what has been mentioned that this court did not follow the steps and the fundamentals upon which the Nuremberg trials were based. It was also not based on the UN laws for war crimes and did not comply with the provisions of the Rome Statute. On the other hand, the tribunal misused the language of international war crimes laws in order to carry out its political vendetta. 12. The killing of Abdul Quader Molla in this way was regarded as a violation of the standards of international justice, besides being a tragedy for his family. The execution is also a tragedy for Bangladesh and its judiciary because of the fact that there was not any impartial and neutral attempt to investigate the reality of what happened in 1971. Without this, it is difficult to visualize how Bangladesh will ever be able to leave its past behind.
— Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs. He can be reached at [email protected]
