Search results

The Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 opposed East Pakistan and India to West Pakistan and resulted in the secession of East Pakistan, which became the independent nation of Bangladesh. The conflict commenced as a result of a military operation launched by the State of Pakistan (then West Pakistan) against Bengali civilians, students and armed personnel who were demanding the military regime of the State of Pakistan to either honour the results of the 1970 democratic elections, which had been won by an East Pakistan party, or allow the secession of East Pakistan from West Pakistan. In response, Bengali military, paramilitary and civilians formed the Mukti Bahini and engaged in guerrilla warfare against the West Pakistan Army with the financial, logistical and diplomatic support of India. The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) was set up in Bangladesh to prosecute those in Bangladesh responsible for committing atrocities in the course of the armed conflict.

The present judgment was rendered by the ICT against Moulana Abul Kalam Azad alias Bachchu Razakar, a member of the Islamist political party Jamaat-e-Islami opposed to an independent Bangladesh. He provided aid to the Pakistani Army and subsequently became the leader of the Al-Badr force, a paramilitary wing of the West Pakistan Army, which operated in East Pakistan against the Bengali nationalist movement. On 21 January 2013, in its first ever judgment, the ICT convicted Azad and sentenced him to death for his crimes. The sentence cannot, however, be carried out until Azad has been located. His trial was held in absentia as he is believed to have fled Bangladesh. 

In one of the first cases concerning (potential) foreign fighters, Omar H., a Dutch citizen, was found guilty of preparing to commit arson and/or an explosion, and of incitement to commit a terrorist crime on 23 October 2013. The District Court of Rotterdam found that Omar H.’s actions of searching online for information about how to make homemade bombs, visiting certain websites, and his purchase of the necessary objects to make a bomb demonstrated he was preparing to commit an act of arson and/or explosion. However, the Court rejected the Prosecutor’s submission that this constituted training for a terrorist crime as there was a need for actual preparation or execution in order to speak of training. Omar H. was also found guilty of inciting terrorist crimes as he had put a film and text about terrorist attacks online, and he had started an online discussion about jihad in a public forum. Omar H. was sentenced to 12 months in prison, four of which were suspended. 

During the fighting between Indonesia and Malaysia, twelve Malaysian Chinese members of the Indonesian Air Force who were heavily armed, infiltrated into Malaysia (ten by parachute and two by boat). They were arrested, convicted pursuant to Malaysian law and sentenced to death. The Federal Court of Malaysia held that two members were protected pursuant to international law, in particular the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 1949. On appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that they were not protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention because they were nationals of Malaysia (the state that detained them). Therefore, they could be prosecuted under national law for offences against that law.

During WWII, numerous grave crimes had been committed by several parties. One of the less known crimes relates to the Japanese army’s “comfort system”, an allegedly state-sanctioned system of mass sexual slavery and sexual violence/torture of hundreds of thousands of women and girls captured in occupied territories. Although the Japanese government has for a long time refused to acknowledge its responsibility – arguing that the “comfort women” were voluntary prostitutes – many surviving victims and supportive Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) sought relief. The current judgment is a result of their efforts: the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, in a 300+-page judgment, concluded that the “comfort system” was indeed a crime against humanity and found all ten accused, then-Emperor Hirohito and nine high-ranking military commanders and Ministers (all deceased at the time the judgment was issued), by way of their superior positions and power to end the widespread rapes, as well because of their involvement in the establishment of the system, guilty.

It should be noted that the Tribunal is not an international tribunal in the common sense, like the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia which were created on authority of the United Nations Security Council, or like the International Criminal Court which was established by a treaty between sovereign states. Instead, the Tribunal’s authority is based on a higher moral ground, being premised on the understanding that ‘“law is an instrument of civil society” that does not belong exclusively to governments whether acting alone or in conjunction with the states. Accordingly, where states fail to exercise their obligations to ensure justice, civil society can and should step in’ (para. 65).