Chief Prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) Tajul Islam has stated that the lenient sentence given to those involved in the killing of six people in Chankharpul after the crime had been proven is not compatible with justice.
The ICT chief prosecutor said this while speaking to journalists on Monday, in reaction to five individuals receiving short-term imprisonment in the crimes against humanity case regarding the killing of six people in the capital’s Chankharpul area during the July uprising.
He added, “The accused openly fired, that has been proven; they carried out a widespread and systematic attack, that too has been proven; crimes against humanity have been proven. Awarding such a light sentence afterwards is not just.”
Tajul, however, expressed satisfaction with the death sentences handed down to the other three accused in the case, including former DMP commissioner Habibur Rahman.
He said, “The prosecution will appeal to the Supreme Court and will seek the death penalty for the five individuals given “lenient” sentences. While acknowledging the obligation to abide by the court’s order, he added, “Since there is a forum for appeal, we will appeal to the Supreme Court against the lenient sentences. We will seek the death penalty.”
Tajul Islam also said that this case cannot be compared with the usual murder case. He said, “Usually, in murder cases, it must be proven whose bullet killed whom. But here, thousands of rounds of bullets were fired, injuring thousands of people, and thousands more martyred. In the case of crimes against humanity, there is no need to prove whose bullet killed whom.”
He added, “The lack of this specific proof does not allow anyone to escape punishment; this is the provision of the law and an internationally recognised principle. Therefore, from that perspective, we believe this is not compatible with international standards.”
Explaining the legal framework, the chief prosecutor said, “The law clearly states that the tribunal can sentence the accused to death or any other punishment if the crime is proven. Here, the primary consideration is the death penalty, but other punishments can also be given considering the gravity of the crime. However, the matter for consideration is whether the sentences given to those whose crimes have been proven are commensurate with the magnitude of their crimes.”
Tajul went on to add that the verdict sends a clear message: No one is above the law, and no state official or employee is obliged to follow an illegal command.
“Everyone must act according to the law. If a higher authority gives an order to commit an illegal act, there is the right and responsibility to disobey it.”
