The Revival of Justice: Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal in the Wake of July 2024

Introduction

The International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh (ICT-BD), originally instituted in 2010 to prosecute crimes against humanity committed during the 1971 Liberation War, has entered a new chapter in the aftermath of the mass protests and violent crackdowns of July 2024. The political upheaval not only resulted in the ousting of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina but also initiated sweeping legal reforms and reopened the possibility of trying recent atrocities under the aegis of the same tribunal. This article outlines the legal basis, amendments, current developments, and future prospects of the ICT-BD while highlighting the need for timely justice.

The July 2024 Uprising and Its Aftermath

In July 2024, Bangladesh witnessed one of its most significant civil movements since independence. The protest, spearheaded by students against the reinstatement of the controversial quota system in public service recruitment, escalated into nationwide demonstrations. The state's harsh response, involving alleged extrajudicial killings, mass detentions, and enforced disappearances, resulted in over 2,500 deaths. These events galvanized the legal community and civil society to call for accountability at the highest level.

Following the collapse of the ruling government, an interim administration led by Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus took charge. One of its early initiatives was to revive and expand the jurisdiction of the ICT-BD to address alleged crimes committed during the July 2024 events.

Legal Foundation, Amendments to the ICT Act, and Subsequent Rule-Making by the Tribunal

The ICT-BD was originally governed by the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973. The Act underwent significant amendments over time, notably in 2010 to operationalize the tribunal with contemporary procedures, and again in 2013 to incorporate provisions for the rights of the accused, appeal procedures, and enhanced prosecutorial authority. However, the Act remained primarily focused on crimes committed during 1971. In November 2024, significant amendments were enacted to modernize and extend the tribunal's scope, followed by the formal framing of comprehensive procedural rules by the Tribunal in January 2025. These new rules aimed to codify fair trial guarantees, define investigative standards, and structure trial timelines more effectively. Key changes included:

• Expanded Jurisdiction: The tribunal's mandate was revised to include crimes committed beyond the 1971 war, particularly the events of July 2024.

• Command Responsibility: New provisions were introduced to hold political and military leaders accountable for acts committed by subordinates if they knew or should have known of such crimes.

• Incorporation of Contemporary Crimes: Enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and state-led repression were included explicitly within the definition of crimes against humanity.

• Victim-Centric Justice: The amended Act emphasized victim and witness protection, and mechanisms for compensation and rehabilitation.

These amendments, along with the framing of detailed procedural rules by the Tribunal in 2011 and further updates in 2025, aligned Bangladesh’s domestic international crimes law more closely with international standards, such as those set out in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Following these legislative reforms, the Tribunal also framed and adopted a revised set of procedural rules in early 2025, intended to streamline case management, clarify evidentiary standards, and enhance protections for victims and witnesses—measures that were seen as crucial for the effective adjudication of the post-July 2024 cases.

Current Status of Investigations and Trials

(Sources: Reuters, 17 Oct 2024; AP News, Oct 2024; Justice Info, Nov 2024)

As of April 2025, the ICT-BD has initiated 18 new cases related to the July 2024 events, involving 119 accused individuals. Among them are prominent figures from the former administration, including former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Arrest warrants have been issued for 87 individuals, and 39 have already been detained.

However, despite the early momentum, the progress of investigations and trial preparations has been noticeably slow. Nearly a year after the July incidents, few of the cases have moved beyond preliminary stages. The complexity of the crimes, the limited capacity of the tribunal, and political and diplomatic obstacles surrounding extradition have contributed to delays. If this pace persists, it will be difficult to ensure timely justice—raising the risk of justice being delayed, and thereby denied.

Efforts are underway to secure the extradition of high-profile fugitives, notably from India and other jurisdictions. The government has formally requested the assistance of the United Nations and several international law enforcement agencies to aid in evidence collection and witness interviews.

Reflection on Past Tribunal Proceedings

Between 2010 and 2023, the ICT-BD tried more than 50 individuals for crimes committed in 1971. It delivered over 30 verdicts, including 22 death sentences, of which 6 were carried out. While these verdicts were seen as milestones in the pursuit of justice, the tribunal was also widely criticized for delays and procedural inefficiencies. In many cases, including those of Ghulam Azam and Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, the accused passed away in custody before the appeals process concluded.

The slow pace of trials, limited judicial capacity, and lack of procedural transparency often undermined public trust. These historical shortcomings offer critical lessons for the tribunal’s renewed mandate.

Time Consumed in Previous Trials

From 2010 to 2024, the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh prosecuted several high-profile individuals for crimes against humanity committed during the 1971 Liberation War. Abul Kalam Azad, tried in absentia, had his case initiated in 2012 and was sentenced to death in January 2013, but remains a fugitive. Abdul Quader Molla was arrested on 13 July 2010, cognizance was taken on 18 December 2011, charge sheet submitted on 28 December 2011, charges framed on 28 May 2012, judgment delivered on 5 February 2013, and his initial life sentence was enhanced to death by the Appellate Division on 17 September 2013; he was executed on 12 December 2013. Delwar Hossain Sayeedi was arrested on 29 June 2010, cognizance taken on 4 October 2011, charge sheet submitted on 18 October 2011, charges framed on 20 October 2011, judgment delivered on 28 February 2013, and although sentenced to death, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment on 17 September 2014; he died in custody on 14 August 2023. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman was arrested on 13 July 2010, cognizance in May 2011, charge sheet in June 2011, charge framed on 7 June 2012, judgment delivered on 9 May 2013, and he was executed on 11 April 2015. Ghulam Azam was arrested on 11 January 2012, cognizance in January 2012, charge sheet submitted in February 2012, charges framed in May 2012, judgment delivered on 15 July 2013, sentenced to 90 years imprisonment, and he died in custody on 23 October 2014. Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed was arrested on 29 June 2010, cognizance in August 2011, charge sheet submitted in December 2011, charges framed on 21 June 2012, judgment pronounced on 17 July 2013, and he was executed on 22 November 2015. Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury was arrested on 16 December 2010, charge sheet submitted in April 2012, charges framed on 4 April 2012, judgment delivered on 1 October 2013, and he was executed on 22 November 2015. Motiur Rahman Nizami was arrested on 29 June 2010, cognizance in 2011, charge sheet submitted in 2012, charges framed on 28 May 2012, judgment delivered on 29 October 2014, and executed on 11 May 2016. Mir Quasem Ali was arrested on 17 June 2012, cognizance taken in September 2012, charge sheet submitted in November 2012, charges framed on 4 February 2013, judgment delivered on 2 November 2014, and he was executed on 3 September 2016. Lastly, A.T.M. Azharul Islam was arrested on 22 August 2012, cognizance on 12 September 2013, charge sheet submitted on 18 July 2013, charges framed on 18 November 2013, judgment delivered on 30 December 2014, sentenced to death, and the appeal was rejected on 31 October 2021; he remains in custody as of 2024. This timeline not only documents the legal rigor of each case but also reflects the prolonged nature of justice delivery within the ICT-BD framework.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the reconstitution of the tribunal and broader legal reforms, several challenges remain:

• Political Sensitivity: Many of the accused in the current wave of prosecutions are former state officials, raising concerns about political motivations and fairness.

• Resource Constraints: The tribunal’s infrastructure and staffing must be significantly enhanced to handle the increased caseload.

• International Scrutiny: Human rights organizations continue to monitor the tribunal closely, calling for adherence to international legal norms and safeguards.

Recommendations for a Prompt and Credible Trial

To ensure the timely and fair delivery of justice, the following steps are recommended:

1. Implement a Digital Case Management System: This would allow real-time monitoring of case progress and reduce procedural backlogs.

2. Appoint Additional Judges and Prosecutors: Multiple benches should operate simultaneously to expedite hearings.

3. Ensure Institutional Independence: The tribunal must be insulated from political interference through constitutional guarantees and oversight mechanisms.

4. Strengthen Victim and Witness Protection: Secure and anonymous testimony, relocation programs, and psychological support should be guaranteed.

5. Establish Time-Bound Procedures: Legal timelines for charge framing, evidence submission, and judgment should be statutorily fixed.

6. Engage International Experts: Technical assistance from international criminal law experts can improve procedural robustness and legitimacy.

7. Increase Transparency: Regular public reports and accessible proceedings will restore public confidence and ensure accountability.

Conclusion

The ICT-BD now finds itself at a pivotal juncture in Bangladesh’s legal and political history. Revitalized by constitutional reform and driven by a renewed sense of national conscience, the tribunal must rise above the limitations of its past. The trials following the July 2024 atrocities represent not just an opportunity for justice—but a test of the nation's commitment to rule of law, institutional integrity, and human rights.

Yet, unless swift and sustained progress is ensured, the momentum gathered after the uprising risks fading. If the lessons from past delays are not internalized, the newly initiated trials may also drag on unresolved for years. Justice, to serve its true purpose, must be both done and seen to be done — and without unnecessary delay. As the adage reminds us: justice delayed is justice denied.

By implementing the suggested reforms and maintaining an unwavering commitment to impartiality and efficiency, Bangladesh has the opportunity not only to complete these trials, but also to establish a global model for transitional justice that reflects both fairness and urgency.