Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), created under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act of 1973, has long attempted to project the stature of a global judicial body. By adopting the term “international”, the tribunal has evoked the imagery of The Hague and Nuremberg. Yet its structure, mandate, and procedures show that it is, in substance, a domestic court operating entirely within Bangladesh’s political and legal framework.
According to ICT documents accessed exclusively by News18, the tribunal handled two major clusters of cases before 2024. Beyond the widely known trials of the ‘rajakar’ or 1971 war criminals—linked to the Muktijuddha, the liberation war that created Bangladesh—another significant set of proceedings targeted members of Jamaat-e-Islami.
A major case listed in 2023 included 36 First Information Reports (FIRs) and 187 accused, of whom 77 were absconding, 71 were arrested, and the remainder had died of natural or age-related causes. Over the past decade, the tribunal received 772 complaints, consolidating them into 105 cases. It completed investigations in 74 cases, with 27 still pending, and 34 currently under trial. The ICT has issued 42 judgments, sentencing around 70 individuals, including six executions.
A tribunal without international foundations
A close reading of the law and its procedures makes clear that the ICT is a domestic tribunal “wearing an international mask”. It is neither backed by the United Nations nor created through international treaties. Unlike the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, it bears no global mandate.
Critics note that the ICT is “answerable only to Bangladesh’s executive” and diverges significantly from international norms. All judges, prosecutors, and investigators are Bangladeshi, often perceived as aligned with the regime in power. No international experts serve on its panels.
Legal structure rooted in domestic law
The tribunal functions solely under Bangladeshi law—primarily the 1973 Act—which is not harmonised with modern international criminal frameworks like the Rome Statute.
The Act grants sweeping powers to individual tribunal members. One section states: “Any member of a Tribunal shall have power to direct, or issue a warrant for, the arrest of… any person charged with any crime specified in section 3.”
Section 3 adds that the tribunal may try and punish any individual or group, “irrespective of his nationality”, for crimes including “murder, extermination, enslavement… torture, rape… persecutions… Crimes against peace, and Genocide.”
Such unilateral powers do not exist in recognised international courts, where warrants are collective decisions grounded in exhaustive investigations and accompanied by provisions for bail.
No international registry lists the ICT, and no global tribunal acknowledges it. Its “international” label is therefore more branding than legal reality.
Political influence and limited safeguards
Foreign defence counsel are barred, and UN involvement has been resisted—partly because international standards prohibit the death penalty, which the ICT can impose. The court’s jurisdiction applies only to crimes committed within Bangladesh, largely relating to 1971.
Judges are appointed and reshuffled by the government, prosecutors work within state machinery, and there is no external oversight. Trials have frequently aligned with political narratives, reflecting the ruling party’s priorities rather than neutral justice.
Procedural safeguards are limited: interlocutory appeals are restricted, and the tribunal has only selectively adopted international humanitarian and human rights norms.
Justice that stays within Dhaka
The ICT has faced persistent criticism for curtailed defence rights, restricted cross-examination, reliance on hearsay, and unusually swift verdicts—including death sentences confirmed within days. International tribunals would not certify such standards.
While the tribunal’s stated mission of prosecuting 1971 atrocities is legitimate, its selective focus—primarily targeting political opponents while excluding pro-government actors—undermines any claim to international neutrality.
A domestic court with global ambitions
Ultimately, the ICT remains international in rhetoric but not in structure. It has no UN linkage, no shared jurisprudence with global war-crimes courts, and no recognition beyond Bangladesh. It is a tribunal whose authority never travels beyond Dhaka, despite its internationally styled name.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
