Introduction
Following mass pupil protests and a violent crackdown that killed at the very least 1,400 folks, Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year authoritarian rule as Prime Minister of Bangladesh ended on 5 August 2024 (right here, right here, right here). Amid unprecedented public outrage, she fled to India, and an interim Authorities led by Nobel Laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus took cost. The violence was largely triggered by the Authorities’s shoot-on-sight orders to suppress the protests. Authorized proceedings underneath the Worldwide Crimes (Tribunals) Act (ICTA) have since been initiated towards Hasina and different Bangladesh Awami League (BAL) leaders for alleged crimes towards humanity. Though the Worldwide Crimes Tribunal (ICT-BD) has requested her extradition from India, Indian authorities have refused, citing carve-out clauses underneath the extradition treaty. Particular Adviser to the Chief Prosecutor, Toby Cadman, has asserted that the trial will proceed in Hasina’s absence, if vital. Nevertheless, this put up challenges the legality of conducting such trials in absentia, arguing they lack justification underneath each the ICTA and worldwide felony legislation. This argument beneficial properties additional weight from the truth that the ICTA prescribes dying penalty as its most punishment. The put up will begin by exploring the historic background of the ICTA, then transfer on to look at its core authorized provisions and vital judicial choices, each home and worldwide, complemented by a comparative evaluation of the well-established jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) and the European Courtroom of Human Rights (ECtHR). It finally argues that, except the legislation is reformed to align with worldwide requirements, conducting a trial towards Hasina and different defendants in absentia can be inconsistent with established authorized norms and would undermine basic rules of due course of.
