Proving Modes of Criminal Liability in Prosecuting International Crimes: An Analysis of International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh
Abstract
is study examines how the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh (ICTB)- a domestic criminal court, is prosecuting and punishing international criminalities perpetrated in the Bangladesh Freedom War in 1971 through the flaw laws in proving the modes of individual criminal responsibility that hinder securing criminal justice to the parties. By applying a qualitative approach, this study firstly scrutinizes the modes of criminal responsibility in the ICTB’s Statue-the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973 and whether such notion is supported by international customary law in 1971 and 2010. Secondly, this study outlines different modes of liabilities, such as Joint Criminal Enterprise and Superior Liability, that are extensively applied by the jurisprudence of the ICTB in more than 51 individual cases to date. Lastly, as the originality of this research, it advances ‘Two Proposals’ that need to be executed by the ICTB to secure criminal justice to the relevant bodies in improving its legitimacy to the global criminal justice system. Then, the study concludes that in any failure to uphold the customary law requirement of proving the Joint Criminal Enterprise and the Superior Liability as the particular modes of criminal liability, the tribunal will lose its legal credibility.
Downloads
References
Ambos, K. (2013). Treatise on International Criminal Law, Volume I: Foundations and General Part. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
‘Commentary of the Rome Statute: Part 3’, Case Matrix Network, available online at: www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/icc-commentary-clicc/commentary-romestatute/commentary-rome-statute-part-3/.
Beringmeier, M. (2018). The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. Berlin: Berliner Wissenshafts-Verlag.
Billah, M, Saripan, H, Rahmat, N. E, A. Hassan, R, Nisa, T. B. & Mia, M. T. (2023). Murder, Extermination, and Torture as the Underlying Offenses of Crimes against Humanity: A Practical Reflection on the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh. Journal of Namibian Studies (37), 712-744.
Billah, M. 2023. “Execution of Jamaat Leaders: National Villains or Fallen Heroes?” in Islam, S.S., & Islam, M.S. (Eds.). The Jamaat Question in Bangladesh: Islam, Politics and Society in a Post-Democratic Nation (1st ed.) (184-207), Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003310679.
Billah, M, Mahbub, F. & Nisa, T. B. (2022). The Impact of the Political Interference on Prosecuting International Crimes: An Experience from the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences 58 (1), 607-617.
Billah, M. (2021). Prosecuting Crimes against Humanity and Genocide at the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh: An Approach to International Criminal Law Standards. Laws (10), 1-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10040082.
Billah, M. (2020). Non-retroactivity in Prosecuting Crimes against Humanity and International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh. Journal of Politics and Law 13(3), 180-195. DOI:10.5539/jpl.v13n3p180.
Carolyn, F. (2013). “The International Crimes Tribunal Observer, Special Issue No. 4 - Legal Conclusions from Chief Prosecutor v. Kamaruzzaman,” Asian International Justice Initiative. available at https://bangladeshtrialobserver.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/special-issue-4-ka maruzzaman-legal-conclusions-final.pdf.
Cassese, A. & Gaeta, P. (2013). Cassese's International Criminal Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chief Prosecutor v Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid, ICTB Case No. 04 of 2012, Trial Judgment 17 July, 2013.
Chief Prosecutor v Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid, ICTB Case No. 04 of 2012, Charge Framing Order, 21 June 2012.
Chief Prosecutor v Jabbar Engineer, ICTB Case No. 01 of 2014, Trial Judgment, 24 February 2015.
Chief Prosecutor v Mir Quasem Ali, ICTB Case No. 03 of 2013, Trial Judgment, 2 November, 2014.
Chief Prosecutor v Motiur Rahman Nizami, ICTB Case No. 03 of 2011. Charge Framing Order, 28 May 2012.
Chief Prosecutor v Muhammad Kamaruzzaman, ICTB Case No. 03 of 2012, Trial Judgment, 09 May, 2013.
Chief Prosecutor v Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, ICTB Case No. 02 of 2011, Trial Judgment, 1 October, 2013.
Chief Prosecutor v Syed Md. Qaiser, ICTB Case No. 04 of 2013, Trial Judgment, 23 December 2014.
Chief Prosecutor v. Ali, ICTB Case No. 03of 2013, Charge Framing Order, 5 September 2013, pp. 9-18.
Chief Prosecutor v. Jabbar Engineer, ICTB Case No. 01 of 2014, Charge Framing Order, 14 August 2014, p. 14;
Chief Prosecutor v. Professor Golam Azam, ICTB Case No. 06 of 2011, Charge Framing Order, 13 May 201.
Chief Prosecutor v. Qaiser, ICTB Case No. 04 of 2014, Charge Framing Order, 2 February 2014, pp. 11-18;
Chief Prosecutor v. Uddin et al., ICTB Case No. 01 of 2013, Judgment, 3 November 2013, para. 243.
ECCC Statute 2004, Art. 29, at https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ictr_EF.pdf.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Rwanda Statute, 1994, Art. 6, at https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ictr_EF.pdf;
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Statute 1993, at https://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_sept09_en.pdf;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.
International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Background & Structure, available at https://guides.lib.unc.edu/internationallaw/tribunals.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Rwanda (ICTR) Background & Structure, available at https://guides.lib.unc.edu/internationallaw/tribunals.
Islam, M. R. (2019). National Trials of International Crimes in Bangladesh: Transitional Justice as Reflected in Judgments. Leiden: Brill|Nijhoff.
Jordash QC, W., & Bracq, N. (2019). Modes of Liability and Individual Criminal Responsibility. In C. Jalloh, K. Clarke, & V. Nmehielle (Eds.), The African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples' Rights in Context: Development and Challenges (pp. 743-792). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108525343.027.
Linton, S. (2010). Completing the Circle: Accountability for the Crimes of the 1971 Bangladesh War of Liberation. Criminal Law Forum 21(1),191–311.
Muhammad Kamaruzzaman v. Chief Prosecutor, ICTB Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2013, Appeal Judgment of 3 November, 2014.
Prosecutor v Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4, International Criminal Tribunal for the Rwanda (ICTR) Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 September, 1998.
Prosecutor v Delalic et al., Case No. IT-96-21-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeal Judgment, 20 February 2001.
Prosecutor v Erdemović, Case No. ICTY-96-22-A, (Judgement, 7 October 1997, para 44;
Prosecutor v Galić, Case No. ICTY-98-29-T, Judgement 5 December 2003, Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Nieto-Navia paras. 108–13;
Prosecutor v Kordić & Erkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgment, 17 December 17, 2004.
Prosecutor v Kunarac et al. Case No. ICTY-96-23 and ICTY-96-23/1-A, Judgement, 12 June 2002, paras. 98–101;
Prosecutor v Milutinovic et al. Case No. IT-05-87, ICTY Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic’s Motion Challenging Jurisdiction-Joint Criminal Enterprise, 21 May 2003.
Prosecutor v Prlić et al. Case No. ICTY-04-74-T, Trial Judgement, 29 May 2013.
Prosecutor v Šainović et al. Case No. ICTY-05-87-A, Appeal Judgement, 23 January 2014, paras. 1626–50.
Prosecutor v Tadić, Case No. ICTY-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999, paras. 220, 270;
Prosecutor v. Aifred Musema, ICTR-96-13-T, Trial Judgment of January 27, 2000.
Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Case No. IT-96-21-A, ICTY Trial Judgment, 16 November 1998.
Prosecutor v. Hadziihasanovic et al., Case No. IT-01-47, ICTY Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility, 16 July 2003, para. 29.
Prosecutor v. Ieng Thirith et al., Case No. ECCC-002, Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) Decision on the Appeals against the Co Investigative Judges Order on Joint Criminal Enterprise, 20 May 2010.
Prosecutor v. Kvocka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber judgment, 28 February, 2005, para. 421.
Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR-01-65-T, ICTR Judgment, 11 September 2006, paras. 17, 37.
Prosecutor v. Naser Oric, Case No. Case No. IT-03-68-T, ICTY Trial Judgment, 30 June 2006.
Prosecutor v. Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24, ICTY Appeal Judgment, 22 March 2006.
Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber Judgment, 15 July 1999.
Razzaq, A. (2016) “The Tribunals in Bangladesh: Falling Short of International Standards,” in Kirsten Sellars (ed.), Trials for International Crimes in Asia (pp. 341–359). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robertson, G. (2015). “Report on the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh.” International Forum for Democracy and Human Rights (2015), available at: http://www.barhumanrights.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/REPORT-ON-THE-INTERNATIONAL-CRIMES-TRIBUNAL-OF BANGLADESH.pdf.
Ronen, Y. (2010). Superior Responsibility of Civilians for International Crimes Committed in Civilian Settings. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 43(2), 313-356.
SCSL Statute, 2000, Art. 6, at http://www.rscsl.org/Documents/scsl-statute.pdf.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.
UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 827 (1993), UN Doc. S/RES/827(1993), 25 May 1993, Adopted by the Security Council at its 3217th meeting, available on http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/827.
UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 955, (1994), UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), 8 November 1994, Adopted by the Security Council at its 3453rd meeting, available on http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/955.
UN Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), UN Doc. S/25704 (3 May 1993), 55.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
World Tel Bangladesh Ltd v. Bangladesh, [2006] 58 DLR 14, Supreme Court, Appeal Judgment, 15 April, 2006.