Introduction
Following mass student protests and a violent crackdown that killed at least 1,400 people, Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year authoritarian rule as Prime Minister of Bangladesh ended on 5 August 2024 (here, here, here). Amid unprecedented public outrage, she fled to India, and an interim Government led by Nobel Laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus took charge. The violence was largely triggered by the Government’s shoot-on-sight orders to suppress the protests. Legal proceedings under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act (ICTA) have since been initiated against Hasina and other Bangladesh Awami League (BAL) leaders for alleged crimes against humanity. Although the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-BD) has requested her extradition from India, Indian authorities have refused, citing carve-out clauses under the extradition treaty. Special Adviser to the Chief Prosecutor, Toby Cadman, has asserted that the trial will proceed in Hasina’s absence, if necessary. However, this post challenges the legality of conducting such trials in absentia, arguing they lack justification under both the ICTA and international criminal law. This argument gains further weight from the fact that the ICTA prescribes death penalty as its maximum punishment. The post will start by exploring the historical background of the ICTA, then move on to examine its core legal provisions and significant judicial decisions, both domestic and international, complemented by a comparative analysis of the well-established jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It ultimately argues that, unless the law is reformed to align with international standards, conducting a trial against Hasina and other defendants in absentia would be inconsistent with established legal norms and would undermine fundamental principles of due process.
