The Chief Prosecutor’s Office has appealed to Appellate Division against a verdict of International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), seeking death penalty for incarcerated Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) President Hasanul Haq Inu.
Filed on Monday, 5 October, the appeal challenges ICT’s 10-year prison sentence awarded to Inu for crimes against humanity committed during July 2024 mass uprising, branding the penalty as “inadequate and lenient.”
Prosecution maintains that given the extreme gravity and severity of offences, capital punishment is the only lawful, appropriate, and proportionate outcome to deliver true justice.
Statutory mandates and unexplained leniency
In its submission, prosecution lays out 11 distinct legal grounds detailing why Inu’s 10-year sentence must be enhanced to death.
Under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, established legal principles dictate that capital punishment is the standard statutory penalty for convictions involving crimes against humanity, whilst custodial sentences represent rare exceptions that must strictly align with the gravity of the offence.
Although the tribunal convicted Inu on the third, sixth, and seventh charges – sentencing him to 10 years’ imprisonment for each count alongside a fine of Tk 1 lakh – it ordered the sentences to run concurrently, effectively reducing his custodial term to just 10 years.
The prosecution contends that Section 20(2) of the 1973 Act mandates capital punishment as the primary penalty unless strong and compelling special reasons are identified and articulated by the court.
The ICT failed to identify or explain any such special grounds when granting leniency.
Moreover, because the offences involved widespread and systematic attacks on the civilian population – constituting severe breaches of international humanitarian law – the maximum statutory penalty under Section 20 should have been applied.
The prosecution has also requested that the compensation amount be increased to equal the total value of Inu’s owned property, with the proceeds allocated directly to the victims of the July mass uprising.
It further urged the apex court to overturn Inu’s acquittals on the first, second, fourth, fifth, and eighth charges, asserting that written documents, digital evidence, and witness testimony established his guilt across all eight counts beyond reasonable doubt.
Superior responsibility of civilian leadership
A central pillar of the prosecution’s demand for capital punishment rests on the doctrine of superior command responsibility within international criminal jurisprudence.
The appeal submits that civilian, political, and religious leaders bear a higher degree of criminal liability than military commanders or frontline subordinates.
Because political directives carry immense societal weight and followers view such leaders as role models under their direct influence, their instructions foster an environment of violence and create a climate of widespread impunity.
Even when civilian leaders do not physically execute atrocities themselves, their position of authority directly shapes the conditions in which crimes occur, warranting comparatively harsher penalties.
Severity of atrocities, misalignment in sentencing
Detailing the gravity of the offences, the prosecution cited Inu’s role in inciting violence and ordering the killing of protesters during July and August 2024.
His actions led to the indiscriminate destruction of valuable lives and established a reign of terror that shocked human conscience.
The prosecution characterised his conduct as cruel, cold-blooded, atrocious, and barbaric, noting that helpless civilians were targeted in deeply condemnable ways.
Finally, the prosecution highlighted a stark internal contradiction between the tribunal’s factual findings and the penalty imposed.
While the tribunal accepted the evidence and findings as conclusive proof of mass atrocities, it failed to reflect that severity in its sentencing.
Sentencing must balance an accused’s right to fairness against the rights of victims to see perpetrators justly punished and society’s legitimate expectations of moral condemnation and deterrence.
The prosecution maintains that a 10-year term fails to maintain proportionality with the scale of atrocities, leadership role, and superior responsibility involved, insisting that only the death penalty can fulfill these legal and societal imperatives.
