নিউইয়র্কভিত্তিক আন্তর্জাতিক মানবাধিকার বিষয়ক সংগঠন হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের (এইচআরডব্লিউ) বিরুদ্ধে আদালত অবমনার অভিযোগে মামলা দায়ের করা হয়েছে আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনাল-১ এ। প্রসিকিউশন বা রাষ্ট্রপক্ষ থেকে আজ দুপুরের পর ট্রাইব্যুনালের রেজিস্ট্রার কার্যালয়ে এ অভিযোগ দাখিল করা হয়েছে।
হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের পক্ষ থেকে অধ্যাপক গোলাম আযমের বিরুদ্ধে বিচার প্রকৃয়াকে মারাত্মক ত্রুটিপূর্ণ এবং পক্ষপাতদুষ্ট হিসেবে আখ্যায়িত করে বিবৃতি প্রদানের প্রেক্ষিতে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষ সংস্থাটির বিরুদ্ধে আদালত অবমাননার অভিযোগ দাখিল করল।
রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের আইনজীবী ব্যারিস্টার তুরিন আফরোজসহ অন্যান্য আইনজীবীরা অভিযোগটি দায়ের করেন।
অভিযোগ দায়ের করার পর রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের আইনজীবী ব্যারিস্টার তুরিন আফরোজ ট্রাইব্যুনালের সামনে সাংবাদিকদের বলেন, গোলাম আযমের রায়কে ত্রুটিপূর্ণ আখ্যায়িত করে হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচ পাঁচটি বিষয় তুলে ধরেছে। এর মধ্যে দুটি যুক্তি আমাদের কাছে আদালত অবমাননাকর বলে মনে হয়েছে। সে দুটি হল-হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচ বলেছে ট্রাইব্যুনাল নিজ থেকে গোলাম আযমের মামলায় তদন্ত করেছে। আরেকটি হল রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের সাথে যোগসাজস করে ট্রাইব্যুনালের বিচারকরা রায় দিয়েছে। এছাড়া গোলাম আযমের মামলাটি বর্তমানে আপিল বিভাগে বিচারাধীন। এসব কারনে আমরা সংস্থাটির বিরুদ্ধে আদালত অবমাননার অভিযোগ দায়ের করেছি।
রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের দায়ের করা মামলায় হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের যাদের বিবাদী করা হয়েছে তারা হল-
১. হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচ, পরিচালনা পর্ষদ, ৩৫০, ফিফথ এভিনিউ, ৩৪ তলা, নিউইয়র্ক, যুক্তরাষ্ট্র,
২. সংগঠনটির এশিয়া অঞ্চলের নির্বাহী পরিচালক ব্যাড অ্যাডামস, ১০০, বুশ স্ট্রিট, স্যুইট ৯২৫, সানফ্রান্সিসকো, যুক্তরাষ্ট্র, এবং
৩. এশিয়া অঞ্চলের সহকারি স্টর্ম পিভ (১৬৩০, কানেক্টিভিটি এভিনিউ, এন ডব্লিউ, ওয়াশিংটন ডিসি, যুক্তরাষ্ট্র) ।
আদালত অবমাননার অভিযোগে কেন হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের বিরুদ্ধে বিচার প্রকৃয়া শুরু করা হবেনা সে মর্মে রুল জারির আবেদন করা হয়েছে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের আবেদনে। এছাড়া হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের বিরুদ্ধে ট্রাইব্যুনাল আইনের ১১ (৪) ধারায় বর্নিত সর্বোচ্চ ১ বছরের সাজা অথবা পর্যাপ্ত পরিমান জরিমানারও আবেদন করা হয়েছে।
গত ১৬ আগস্ট হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচ কর্তৃক অধ্যাপক গোলাম আযমের বিচার প্রকৃয়াকে সমালোচনা করে প্রদত্ত বিবৃতিকে মিথ্যা, ভিত্তিহীন, বিভ্রান্তিকর, পক্ষপাতদুষ্ট, অসদউদ্দেশ্যমূলক এবং ট্রাইব্যুনালের বিচার প্রকৃয়াকে কলুষিত করা ও জনমনে খারাপ ধারণার উদ্দেশে অপপ্রচারমূলক আখ্যায়িত করে আবেদনে বলা হয়েছে এ বিষয়ে শুনানী শেষে কেন একে ট্রাইব্যুনাল বিরোধী বলে গণ্য করা হবেনা সে মর্মে রুল জারির করা হোক।
অভিযোগ দায়েরের পর এ বিষয়ে সুরাহা না হওয়া পর্যন্ত পরবর্তীতে এ ধরনের বিবৃতি প্রদান, প্রচার প্রকাশনার ওপর নিষেধাজ্ঞা চাওয়া হয়েছে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের আবেদনে।
অধ্যাপক গোলাম আযমের বিচার নিয়ে হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের বিবৃতিকে একটি স্বাধীন দেশের বিচার ব্যবস্থায় হস্তক্ষেপ, ট্রাইব্যুনালের পুরো বিচার প্রকৃয়াকে হেয় করা, ট্রাইব্যুাল সম্পর্কে জনমনে ভ্রান্ত ধারণা সৃষ্টি করা, ট্রাইব্যুনালের সম্মান নষ্ট করা এবং সার্বিকভাবে বাংলাদেশের বিচার ব্যবস্থাকে হেয় করা হয়েছে বলে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে আবেদন।
আবেদনে হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের বিরুদ্ধে বেশ কিছু অনৈতিক কার্যকলাপের অভিযোগ আনা হয়েছে। পক্ষপাতিত্ব করা, রিপোটির্ং নীতিমালা লঙ্ঘন, অনৈতিক ফান্ড কালেকশন পলিসিসহ অনেকগুলো অভিযোগ তুলে ধরা হয়েছে।
চলতি মাসের ১৬ তারিখ হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচ তাদের নিজস্ব ওয়েবসাইটে অধ্যাপক গোলাম আযমের বিচার প্রকৃয়ার তীব্র সমালোচনা করে বিবৃতি প্রদান করে। এতে বলা হয়- অধ্যাপক গোলাম আযমের বিচার প্রকৃয়া মারাত্মক ত্রুটিপূর্ন ছিল এবং ট্রাইব্যুনাল রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের প্রতি পক্ষপাতদুষ্ট হয়ে কাজ করেছে। রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের উপস্থাপিত তথ্য প্রমানে ঘাটতি থাকায় ট্রাইব্যুনাল নিজ থেকে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের হয়ে তদন্ত কার্যক্রম পরিচালনা করেছে বলে রায়ে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে। এটা তারা করতে পারেনা কারণ বিচারকরা তাদের সামনে উপস্থাপিত তথ্য বিশ্লেষন করে রায় দেবেন। নিজেরা তদন্ত করতে পারেননা। তাদের তদন্তের ফাইন্ডিংস বিষয়ে আসামী পক্ষ কোন বক্তব্য রাখার সুযোগ পায়নি।
হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচের পক্ষ থেকে দ্বিতীয় যে গুরুতর অভিযোগ উত্থাপন করা হয় তাহল-ট্রাইব্যুনালের বিচারকদের সাথে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের আইনজীবীদের আতাত ছিল এবং বিচারপকরা রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের প্রতি পক্ষপাতদুষ্ট হয়ে কাজ করেছেন। এ বিষয়ে হিউম্যান রাইটস ওয়াচ স্কাইপ কেলেঙ্কারির বিষয় তুলে ধরে মন্তব্য করেছে-এ থেকে স্পষ্ট যে, রাষ্ট্রপক্ষ কিভাবে এ বিচার পরিচালনা করবে, কোন সাক্ষী কখন হাজির করবে, সাক্ষীকে দিয়ে কি বলাতে হবে এ বিষয়ে ট্রাইব্যুনালের বিচারক রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের হাতে নীলনকশা তুলে দিয়েছে। স্কাইপ ডায়ালগ থেকে এটি স্পষ্ট যে বিচারকরা ঘণিষ্ঠভাবে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষের আইনজীবীদের পরামর্শ এবং নির্দেশনা দিয়েছে এ বিচার পরিচালনা বিষয়ে।
সংগঠনটির এশিয়া অঞ্চলের পরিচালন ব্রাড এডামস বলেন, আমরা শুরু থেকেই সতর্ক করে আসছিলাম যে, বিচার প্রকৃয়ায় অনেক ঘাটতি রয়েছে। কিন্তু সরকার আমাদের কথা আমলে নেয়নি। সরকার যে রায় চেয়েছিল তা তারা পেয়েছে। কিন্তু গোলাম আযম আসলেই দোষী ছিল কিনা এ বিষয়ে স্থায়ী ফয়সালায় পৌছা এবং ন্যায় বিচার নিশ্চিত করতে ব্যর্থ হয়েছে তারা।
The problems with the Azam trial are manifold, and lead to the inescapable
conclusion that there has been strong judicial bias towards the prosecution and
grave violations of due process rights. The victims of these crimes and their
families deserve real answers, which can only be found through fair and
transparent proceedings.
Jamaat-e-Islaami (Jamaat) party, at Bangladesh’s
International Crimes Tribunal was deeply flawed and did not meet international
fair trial standards, Human Rights Watch said today.
In March 2010 Azam was charged with six counts of conspiracy, planning,
incitement, complicity, murder, and torture as crimes against humanity at the
International Crimes Tribunal, known as the ICT, a specially constituted
tribunal set up to try those responsible for war crimes during Bangladesh’s
1971 independence war. The judgment, handed down on July 15, 2013, found Azam guilty on all counts and
sentenced him to life in prison for 90 years. He was spared the death penalty
due to old age. On August 12, the prosecution appealed the sentence, arguing
that Azam deserved the death penalty.
“Human Rights Watch has long supported the efforts to deliver accountability
for the atrocities committed during the 1971 war, and to ensuring meaningful
justice to victims and survivors, through fair trials which meet international
standards,” said
, Asia
director.
·
Judges improperly conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution
Among the most serious problems is the fact that the judges stated that they
conducted an investigation to make up for deficiencies in the case presented by
the prosecution. Judges in Bangladesh
are only empowered to examine the evidence placed in front of them by the
parties to the case. The defense counsel was not aware of this investigation
and was thus unable to comment on or challenge the evidence obtained by the
judges, which constitutes a serious violation of article 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh
is a party. The investigation calls into serious question the impartiality of
the court.
The ICT had not answered allegations of judicial bias raised by intercepted
Skype and other communications in which
revealed
prohibited collusion between the judiciary, the prosecution, and the executive
branch via an external consultant. Many conversations concerned the Azam trial,
including ones which show that the judges laid out a blueprint to be used by
the prosecution as to how to conduct the trial, which witnesses to call, and
how to question them. The conversations make it clear that the judges were
closely advising and directing the prosecution on presenting their case against
Azam.
In addition, there have been ongoing problems with intimidation of defense
witnesses and raids on defense chambers, including in the Azam case. The trial
chambers have not ordered any investigation or offered any practical solution
to overcoming the security concerns expressed by defense witnesses.
“The problems with the Azam trial are manifold, and lead to the inescapable
conclusion that there has been strong judicial bias towards the prosecution and
grave violations of due process rights,” Adams said.
“The victims of these crimes and their families deserve real answers, which can
only be found through fair and transparent proceedings.”
Prosecution's full application
IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES TRIBUNAL-1, DHAKA.
ICT – BD MISC. PETITION NO. ....... OF 2013
IN
THE MATTER OF:
A petition for contempt under section 11(4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,
1973, read with Rule 45 of the International
Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure, 2010.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Chief Prosecutor
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Human Rights Watch, represented by its Board of
Directors, 350 Fifth Avenue,
34th Floor, New
York, NY 10118-3299 USA.
2. Mr. Brad Adams, Executive Director, Asia Division, Human
Rights Watch, 100 Bush Street, Suit 925, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA.
3. Mr. Storm Tiv, Associate, Asia Division, Human Rights
Watch, 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20009.
...Opposite
Parties
The humble petition on behalf of the Petitioner above named
most respectfully:
SHEWETH:
1. That
on 15th July 2013, the Hon’ble International Crimes Tribunal No. 1
of Bangladesh delivered its judgment in the
Chief Prosecutor versus Professor Ghulam Azam, ICT-BD Case No. 06 of 2011 (henceforth,
Azam Case) and sentenced him for 90
years of imprisonment since he was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, for
the offences, under section 3(2) of the International
Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 (henceforth, the 1973 Act), committed by him
in 1971.
2. That
the Appeals of the Azam Case against
the conviction and sentencing are now pending before the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
3. That
on 16th August 2013, Opposite Party No. 1, an international NGO,
namely – Human Rights Watch, its Head Office being in 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th
Floor, New York, NY 10118-3299 USA, originated an article written by the Opposite Party No. 3, namely one Storm Tiv,
an Associate of Asia Division, Human Rights Watch, his working address being
1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20009, under the
direct supervision of Opposite Party No. 2, namely Mr. Brad Adams, Executive
Director, Asia Division, Human Rights Watch, his working address being 100 Bush
Street, Suit 925, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA. The said article was published
via Opposite Party No.1’s worldwide official website (http://www.hrw.org)
with the following caption: “Bangladesh: Azam Conviction Based on Flawed
Proceedings: Analysis Outlines how Fair Trial Rights of Accused Seriously
Compromised”.
That
the said article is attached herewith and marked as, Annexure-A.
4. That
in the said article dated 16th
August, 2013, the Opposite Party No. 1 with
bias and mala fide intention most unethically commented, while the Appeals are pending before the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, on the Professor
Ghulam Azam’s trial proceeding at this Hon’ble Tribunal and the evidential
issues of the same case.
5. That
in the said scandalising article, the Opposite Party No. 1 alleged, inter alia, that –
(a) Judges of this Hon’ble Tribunal improperly conducted an investigation on
behalf of the prosecution in the Azam
Case;
(b)
There was collusion and biasness
among prosecutors and judges in the Azam
Case;
(c) The
Tribunal failed to take steps to protect defense witnesses of the Azam Case,
(d) There
were changes in the judicial panel during trial of the Azam Case; and
(e) There was lack of evidence to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt in the Azam
Case.
6. That
the Petitioner concedes that issues relating to above mentioned allegation (e) are
clearly a matter sub-judice and issues relating to
allegations (c) and (d) are of no relevance to the Petitioner and as such, the
Petitioner does not at all rest his prayer on issues relating to allegations
(c), (d) and (e).
7. That the petitioner submits that statements made in reference
with the issues relating to above mentioned allegation (a) and (b) are biased, baseless, utterly
false and fabricated, ill-motivated, and are not
made in good faith. Such statements were made only to scandalize this Hon’ble
Tribunal and its process (by exercising its
independent judicial functions and also fair trial) and to undermine the
confidence of the people in the integrity of this Hon’ble Tribunal and its
process.
8. That the Petitioner therefore prays,
relying upon issues relating to above
mentioned allegations (a) and (b) only, that this Hon’ble Tribunal may issue an order
of contempt against the above-mentioned opposite parties under section 11(4) of
the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,
1973, read with Rule 45 of the International
Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure,
2010.
I Applicable Laws
9. That
section 11(4) of the International Crimes
(Tribunals) Act, 1973 states that:
‘A Tribunal may punish
any person, who obstructs or abuses its process or disobeys any of its orders
or directions, or does anything which tends to prejudice the case of a party
before it, or tends to bring it or any of its members into hatred or contempt,
or does anything which constitutes contempt of the Tribunal, with simple
imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which extent to Taka
five thousand, or with both.’
10. That moreover, Rule 45 of the International
Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure, 2010 states that:
‘In pursuance of section
11(4) of the Act, the Tribunal may draw a proceeding against any person who
obstructs or abuses the process of the Tribunal, or disobeys any of its order
or direction of the Tribunal, or who does anything which tends to prejudice the
case of a party before the Tribunal, or tends to bring the Tribunal or any of
its members into hatred or contempt, or does anything which constitutes
contempt of the Tribunal.’
II Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal
11. That the Petitioner submits that this
Hon’ble Tribunal has jurisdiction over the relevant matter and the parties.
12. That the Petitioner humbly submits that under
section 11 (4) of the 1973 Act, this Hon’ble tribunal is empowered to punish ‘any
person’, which includes both natural and legal person, whether living in
Bangladesh or abroad, who ‘tends to bring
it or any of its members into hatred or contempt’ and/or ‘does anything which constitutes contempt of
the Tribunal’ .
13. That the Petitioner humbly submits that the
above-mentioned opposite parties, by publishing the said article through its
worldwide website and thereby scandalising this Hon’ble Tribunal, either have ‘tended’
to bring this Hon’ble Tribunal into
hatred or contempt and/or have ‘done’ an act which constitutes contempt of the Tribunal. ’
14. That, therefore,
this Hon’ble Tribunal has jurisdiction over the relevant matter and the parties
under section 11(4) of the 1973 Act, read with Rule 45 of the International Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of
Procedure, 2010.
III Background of the Opposite Parties
15. That Opposite
Party No 1 is an US based international human rights organization which
has been in operation for the last 30 years or so. In its
official website, at http://www.hrw.org/about, it
claims to be ‘one of the world’s leading
independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights’. It further claims
that by focusing international attention where human rights
are violated, it ‘gives voice to the
oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes’.
16. That the Opposite
Party No 1 has been
vehemently criticized worldwide for its motvated activities as a human rights
organization. Some of the major allegations
against the Opposite Party No 1 include, inter alia:
(a)
allegations of poor research and
inaccuracy;
(b)
allegations of selection bias;
(c)
allegations of ideological bias;
(d)
allegations of unethical fund
raising policies;
(e)
allegations of bias for or against
particular nations;
(f)
allegations of appointing Nazi
policy supporters (such as, Mr. Marc Garlasco) as investigator to report on war
crimes and crimes against humanity;
(g)
allegations of appointing (pro-US)
terrorists (such as, Mr. Shawan Jabrain) to its Advisory
Board; and
(h)
allegations of publicly supporting
CIA’s illegal actions of extraordinary rendition towards suspected (anti-US)
terrorists.
17. That a wide number of reports,
research publications, open letters of scholars etc. evidences the unethical and motivated role played by the Opposite Party No
1 in various parts of the world by its unreliable, uncredited,
inaccurate and bias reports and findings on human rights matters. Even, the insiders
like Mr. Robert L Bernstein, a founder and former
chairman of the Opposite Party No1 has publicly blamed the Opposite Party for its unethical and motivated activities.
IV Contemptuous Issues
18. That in the above mentioned scandalous
report, originated by the Opposite Parties, alleges that judges
of this Hon’ble Tribunal improperly
conducted an investigation on behalf of the prosecution in the Azam Case.
19. That the Petitioner submits that there is
absolutely no base for bringing such scandalising allegation upon this Hon’ble Tribunal. The Petitioner
also denies that there was ever any such request made by the prosecution in the
Azam Case. Further, the judgement of the Azam Case
does not at all endorse any such investigation being done by this Hon’ble
Tribunal.
20. That the Petitioner submits that such allegation made by the Opposite
Parties are baseless, complete distortion of facts, ill-motivated and as such,
unreliable. These statements were made merely to scadalize this Hon’ble
Tribunal and its process. Also, the statements were made not in good faith and
as such, tantamount to contempt of this Honorable Tribunal.
21. That further in the above
mentioned scandalous report, originated by the the Opposite Parties, alleges
that there was collusion and biasness among
prosecutors and judges in the Azam Case.
22. That the Petitioner submits that there is
absolutely no base for bringing such scandalising allegation upon this Hon’ble
Tribunal. The petitioner also denies that there was ever any unholy or discrete
association between this Hon’ble Tribunal
and the prosecution. These statements were made merely to scadalize this
Hon’ble Tribunal and its process. Also, the statements were made not in good
faith and as such, tantamount to contempt of this Honorable Tribunal.
23. That the only reference made by the Opposite
Parties to its finding of collusion
and biasness among prosecutors and judges in the Azam Case was an alleged skype communication between a member of the bench with his
acquaintence at a very personal level. The Petitioner concedes that the said member of the bench did
voluntarily resign to avoid any unwanted controversy. However, the Petitioner submits that no inquiry,
whether legal, social or technical, was ever made to find the authenticity of
the said skype communication and as such, the
existence, let alone, content of the skype communication, can not be relied upon to allege a collusion and biasness among
prosecutors and judges in the Azam Case.
V Lack of Good Faith
24. That the Petitioner submits that the
allegations (a) and (b) made in the
scandalous article originated and published by the Opposite Parties lack ‘good
faith’ on the part of the Opposite Parties. This is because:
i.
For that the false
and unreliable statements made in allegations (a) and (b) contained in the
scandalous report of the Opposite Parties have unnecessarily questioned the
image, standing and reputation of this Hon’ble Tribunal and as such,
scandalized this Hon’ble Tribunal;
ii.
For that the Opposite
Parties have never carried on any independent investigation/research/inquiry to make such scandalous
remarks contained in allegations (a) and (b) about this Hon’ble Tribunal and its process;
iii.
For that the
statements were inaccurate as it does not rely upon any reliable authority or
in that matter any authority at all;
iv.
For that the Opposite
Parties, claiming to be an independent trial observer of the ICT BD, has never
personally attended through any of its member or representative to observe a
single trial of this Hon’ble Tribunal whether in Azam
Case or other;
v.
For that the false
and unreliable statements made in allegations (a) and (b) contained in the
scandalous report of the Opposite Parties are made long after pronouncement of
the judgment of the Azam
Case especially, when the Appeal of the Azam Case is pending before the Hon’ble Appelate Division of the
Supreme Court of Bangladesh;
vi.
For that the Opposite
Parties are in a chronic habit of publishing reports relying upon poor research
and inaccurate facts;
vii.
For that the Opposite
Parties are in a chronic habit of exercising
selection and ideological bias;
viii.
For that the Opposite
Parties are in the habit of following unethical, immoral and undisclosed
financial policies;
ix.
For that the Opposite
Parties are heavily dependent upon their undisclosed donor (private persons and private organizations) driven fund and as
such, committed to fulfill the agenda of such undisclosed donors;
x.
For that the Opposite
Parties do not practice any ethical standard in its recruitment policies and
even go a long way to accommodate terrorists and human rights violators in
their board;
xi.
For that the Opposite
Parties have illegally intervened in the judicial process of a sovereign
country and tried to assassin the image of the entire process of trial of war
criminals at the ICT BD and the judicial
system, in general, of Bangladesh;
xii.
For that the Opposite
Parties have wrongfully exercised their ‘freedom of expression’ as guranteed
under Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and Article
13 of the American Convention of Human Rights, 1969 and as such, an contempt rule upon them
shall not merit any ‘chilling effect’;
xiii.
For that the Opposite
Parties have violated all norms of journalistic morality as expected under the
international law;
xiv.
For that the Opposite
Parties under the veil of an human rights organization cannot become a partisan
to a human rights issue simply because their undisclosed donors demand so;
xv.
Finally, for that,
statements made at allegations (a) and (b) contained in the scandalous report
of the Opposite Parties do not only attract the provisions of section 11(4) of
the 1973 Act but also, the rules and practices of the international law.
VI PRAYER
25. Therefore,
it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly:
(a)
issue a contempt notice stating that why a contempt proceedings should not be
initiated against the Opposite Parties in
exercise of power of this Hon’ble Tribunal under section
11(4) of the International Crimes
(Tribunals) Act, 1973, read with Rule 45 of the International Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure, 2010;
(b)
upon hearing, convict
the Opposite Parties under section 11(4) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,
1973, read with Rule 45 of the International
Crimes (Tribunal-1) Rules of Procedure,
2010 for publishing
an article dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure – A) through its worldwide
website and thereby scandalising this Hon’ble Tribunal by biased, baseless,
false and fabricated and mala fide publication (Annexure –A), and as
such, have either
‘tended’ to bring this Hon’ble Tribunal
into hatred or contempt and/or have ‘done’ an act which constitutes contempt of the Tribunal ’;
(c)
To stay further display, publication,
circulation or use in any matter or in any other form of the scandalous Article
dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure-A)
(d)
upon conviction, sentence the Opposite Parties,
with imprisonment of one year and/or adequate fine and forward and notify for the execution of the same
to the competent state, i.e., USA through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
(e)
issue any other order(s) or direction(s) that
this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper for the interest of justice.
