Anisul Huq’s Discharge application 

1. That this is an application under Rule 37 of the International Crimes Tribunals Rules of Procedure, 2010 for discharging the accused-petitioner from the instant ICT-BD Case No.08 of 2025.
2. That the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charge in the instant case against the accused-petitioner under section 3(2) (a), (g), (h), and 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.
3. That the facts stated in paragraph nos. 1 to 1.25 of the Formal Charge are politically motivated to which the accused-petitioner has no involvement and the same are denied.
4. That the facts stated in paragraph no.2 of the Formal Charge regarding identity of the accused-petitioner are correct, but the other facts are distorted in nature and the same are denied by the accused- petitioner.
5. That the facts stated in paragraph no.3 of the Formal Charge are not correct. The investigation was politically motivated and perfunctory in nature and the same has been done only to harass and humiliate the accused-petitioner.
6. That the facts stated in paragraph no.4 of the Formal Charge are not correct. Specially, the alleged telephone conversation between the accused-petitioner and Salman F Rahman as mentioned in that paragraph are distorted in nature and the same has been made using technological advancement of artificial intelligence (AI). Killing of various people on different places of Dhaka took place at the time of conflict between the people who took part in the vendalization of different establishments and entered into clash with the members of law enforcing agencies. The accused-petitioner did not have any connection with such incidents. The telephone conversation among the accused-petitioner and Salman F Rahman is also a distorted fact and the said conversation does not disclose any incriminating facts of the charges brought against the accused-petitioner.
7. Moreover, in the formal charge it has been alleged that on 19/07/2024, at 21:24:17, Salman F. Rahman and Anisul Huq, two members of the so-called Gang of Four, discussed over the phone and made a policy-level decision on how to suppress the protests. They decided to end the protests by imposing a curfew. To implement this decision, on the same night, a meeting of the 14-party alliance was held at Gonobhaban, chaired by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and attended by former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, during which a military deployment and nationwide curfew were ordered and executed.
8. That the facts stated in paragraph no.5 of the Formal Charge are not correct. The accused-petitioner held the portfolio of Law Minister (Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs), which is primarily concerned with legislation, justice sector policy, and legal affairs, not with operational decisions. He did not have any scope of giving advice to the Hon’ble Prime Minister regarding enforcement of law and order.
9. Moreover, he was not present in the meeting of 14 parties alliance held on 19.07.2024 at Gonobhaban; and the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that the accused petitioner was participated in the fourteen-party alliance meeting or advised the imposition of a curfew. Therefore, it is submitted that the accused petitioner is not a member of the fourteen-party alliance and has never attended any meeting of said alliance since its inception. Accordingly, these allegations are wholly baseless and without evidential basis and consequently, the allegation of taking decision in execution of curfew does not arise at all against the accused-petitioner.
10. That the facts stated in paragraph no.6 of the Formal Charge are also not correct. The accused-petitioner has no Joint Criminal Enterprise [JEC] Command Responsibility as he was not holding any position for giving order upon the members of law enforcing agencies and he was also not in a position for taking part in the decision making process of enforcement of law and order in the country. The accused petitioner was neither a commander of the police nor a participant in a criminal conspiracy. He held a non-operational civilian portfolio that institutionally excluded him from the chain of command responsible for the alleged violence. Imputing JCE or Command Responsibility to him violates the principle of individual criminal culpability.
11. That in July and August 2024, Bangladesh witnessed a violent uprising against the Government demanding abolition of the quota in 9th grade government services which ultimately caused the death of many civilians, members of police force, physical attacks on members of disciplined forces, police stations and state establishments etc.
12. That it is stated that Article 29 (1) of Part III of the Constitution of Bangladesh states that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in the employment or promotion of the service of the Republic, i.e. Government jobs. Clause (a) of Article 29 (3) says as follows:

 “Nothing in this article shall prevent the state from making special provision in favour of any backward section of citizens for the purpose of securing their adequate representation in the service of the republic.”

13. That pursuant to the said provision of the Constitution, the Government introduced different categories of quota in 9th grade government jobs from time to time since the independence of Bangladesh. As of 2018, there was a 56% quota for the government jobs in the country. Of this, 30% of seats were reserved for descendants of freedom fighters, 10% for women, 10% for residents of backward districts, 5% for people from minority groups, and 1% for people with disabilities. However, if no candidate from the relevant quota would found, those positions would have been filled from the merit list of general candidates.
14. That previously in 2018, protests were held at various educational institutions across the country demanding quota reforms. The then Government, in the wake of the student movement, eliminated all forms of quotas vide a Circular as contained in Memo No. 05.00.0000.170.11.07.18.276 dated 4th October, 2018 issued by the Ministry of Public Administration to ensure the recruitment of meritorious and qualified individuals for positions in grades 9 to 13 (formerly known as first and second-class jobs) in government employment. However, quotas for third and fourth-class posts (grades 14 to 20) remained in effect.
15. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Circular dated 4^th October, 2018, one Mr. Ohidul Islam and others, children of nationally recognized valiant freedom fighters, as petitioners filed a Writ Petition being No. 6063 of 2021 before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
16. That on 5^th June 2024, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh by a Judgment passed in the said Writ Petition No. 6063 of 2021 declared the aforesaid Circular to be illegal, to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
17. That on the next day, students came to the streets and brought out protest, marched at different universities across the country demanding the cancellation of the quota system. On 9th June 2024, a student delegation submitted a memorandum to the Attorney General urging set aside of the High Court’s decision and the reintroduction of the Government’s circular of 2018. Meanwhile, the Government, on the same day at the earliest opportunity, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to the Appellate Division seeking stay of operation of the High Court’s Judgment; and the Hon’ble Judge-in-Chamber of the Appellate Division fixed 4^th July for hearing the said Petition by the full Court of the Appellate Division.
18. That on 4^th July the learned Advocate for the respondent sought time due to personal reasons and the Hon’ble Appellate Division adjourned the hearing. Since the matter was subjudice before the Apex Court of the Country, the Government had no option but to wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings and the Government repeatedly urged the students to wait till disposal of the matter by the Appellate Division.
19. That 08.07.2024, the accused petitioner gave press briefing wherein he clearly stated that the students of the quota movement should become part by filing addition of party application before the Hon’ble Appellate Division. The accused petitioner gave his statement in order to enable the said students to make their arguments heard in the Hon’ble Appellate Division. Subsequently, on 09.07.2024 become the party by filing an application of addition of party.
20. That on the next day of hearing, i.e. 10^th July, 2024, the Appellate Division directed the parties to maintain status–quo in respect of the subject matter and asked the Government to file a regular Leave Petition. Moreover, the Hon’ble Appellate Division also pronounced that the impugned Judgment of the High Court Division shall remain inoperative till that period. In effect this order meant that the order eliminating all forms of quota vide circular memo No. 5.00.0000.170.11.07.18.276 dated 4^th October, 2018 was restored. However, the organizers of the student movement, by shifting their position, came up with a new demand asking the Government to abolish the quota system while the matter was subjudice before the highest Court of the country.
21. That on 14th July 2024, at a press conference the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, while responding to a question put to her by a journalist concerning such behavior of the student, said “Why do they have so much resentment towards freedom fighters?” If the grandchildren of the freedom fighters don’t get quota benefits, should the grandchildren of Razakars [who collaborated with Pakistan Army in commission of atrocities during the struggle for independence in 1971] get the benefit?”. The statement of the Prime Minister was taken negatively by the student protesters, and they came to the streets at midnight. At this point, Bangladesh Chhatro League (BCL), the student wing of the ruling party Awami League, separated itself from the protests and a confrontation began between the BCL and the protesters. On 15^th July, a rumor spread out in social media that two student protesters were killed by BCL. This rumor also got public attention when the US Department of State also made a similar status on their social media pages, even though there was no report either in Bangladeshi media or from Law Enforcement Agencies regarding any death during the student protests till that time. But such false claims fueled agitation among student protesters, and the movement turned out to be violently orchestrated by Jamaat-Shibir-BNP and like-minded activists. The camouflaged activists got involved in violent clashes with members of the law enforcement forces.
22. That on 18^th July 2024, the Government formed a one-member Judicial Commission of Inquiry comprising of a judge of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. On the same day, the Judge-in-Chamber of the Appellate Division on the prayer of the Attorney General rescheduled the hearing of the aforementioned Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal and fixed 21^st July for hearing following a special arrangement as the Supreme Court remained on a vacation at that time. By this time due to widespread misinformation and disinformation on social media, nothing could calm down the protesters; and different public establishments and infrastructures were attacked and vandalized in different places of the country. In such a situation, finding no other alternative to protect the lives of civilians and the public infrastructures, the Government had to impose a nationwide curfew from 20^th July 2024.
23. That it is stated that on 18.07.2024, the accused person, in a press conference before the Parliament Gangway, requested the students to stop the protest as the government had agreed in principle with the quota reform and also humbly requested to sit with them for further discussion. Moreover, the accused person also emphasized four key points for solving this problem which are as follows:(a) The government is ready to sit with the quota reform protesters and discuss a way out of the current volatile situation prevailing in the country;
    (b) The accused person former Education Minister Mohibul Hasan Chowdhury and the former state Minister for information & broadcasting Mohammad Ali Arafat have been given the responsibility to sit with the quota protesters;
    (c) A Judicial Inquiry Committee with High Court Justice Khondker Diliruzzaman as its head to investigate the killings of six people in clashes between the protesters and police was formed; and
    (d) To petition will be preferred before request the Hon’ble Appellate Division through the Attorney General of Bangladesh to advance the date of the hearing on the Hon’ble High Court’s verdict on quota, which was previously fixed for 7 August 2024.
24. That on 21^st July 2024, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Appellate Division was pleased to set aside the High Court’s Judgment dated 5^th June 2024. However, the Apex Court recommended to curtail quotas to only seven percent from the previous 56 percent, particularly five percent quota for children of freedom fighters, martyred freedom fighters and Biranganas (victims of sexual offences during 1971 struggle for liberation), one percent quota for ethnic minorities and another one percent for persons with disability and people of third gender; and the Government also published notification on 23^rd July 2024 giving effect of the judgment of the Hon’ble Appellate Division.
25. That the accused-petitioner was arrested on 8^th August 2024 but it was made public on 13^th August, 2024. Since his arrest, more than one hundred murder cases have been filed against him from various corners of the country. On 4^th December, 2025, the prosecution of the ICT pressed formal charges against him for crimes against humanity, including murder and the Hon’ble Tribunal No.1 took cognizance of the charges against the accused-petitioner.
26. That it is stated that the “Quota Reform Movement” of July-August 2024, which the prosecution characterizes as a peaceful student protest, had by around mid-July degenerated into an armed and extremist uprising. The materials available in the public domain demonstrate that the movement, infiltrated by militant and opposition elements, engaged in systematic violence, arson, killings, and attacks on state establishments. The Investigation Agency along with the prosecution has measurably failed to consider that any responsible government, under both domestic constitutional obligations and international law, would have been duty-bound to protect life and property of the citizens and to use necessary and proportionate means to restore law and order. The same obligation would rest upon any government in the world faced with such acts of mass violence. A few illustrative examples are:a) on 19^th July 2024, a violent attack on Narsingdi District Jail led to a major jailbreak in which 826 prisoners, including nine convicted militants, escaped after armed assailants stormed the facility, set fire to prison buildings, and looted weapons and supplies. These events are consistent with an organized armed uprising rather than a student demonstration. [Sources: https:// www.thedailystar.net/ news/ bangladesh/news/ one-year-narsingdi-jailbreak-177-inmates-still-large-3943166 and https:// www.dhakatribune.com/352682]b) on 4^th August 2024, thirteen policemen were burnt to death in the attack on Enayetpur Police Station in Sirajganj District, while another was killed at Eliotganj Highway Police Station in Comilla. Multiple police stations and government establishments across the country were also attacked and vandalised in coordinated assaults. [Source: https:// thedailystar.net/ news/bangladesh/news/13-cops-killed-attack-police-station-sirajganj-3669641]c) According to initial media estimates published in the immediate aftermath of the July uprising, more than 500 police stations were attacked, looted and arsoned. So far, no follow up investigations have been reportedly carried out to determine the actual number of looted arms and the casualty figures among police personnel resulting from such attacks
27. That the prosecution also failed to consider the admission of prominent organizers which proves that the movement was infiltrated by terrorists who had both intention and knowledge to kill law enforcement agency officials, vandalizing and burning of police stations and government offices and destroy mega public structures like Metro Rail, BTV Building and Setu Bhaban etc. The prosecution has willfully disregarded the following statements:
    (a) Hasib Al-Islam, a coordinator of the quota reform movement, stated in a televised interview on DBC News (26^th October 2024) that: “If the fire had not been set to the metro rail, if police officers had not been killed, then this revolution would not have been achieved so easily. The downfall of fascism could not have been ensured.” Such an admission establishes that the violence was pre-planned political weapon.
    (b) On 13^th November 2024, Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain, an Adviser to the Interim Government and a principal coordinator of the 2024 movement, publicly declared on his verified Facebook account that the organisers were “fully prepared to call for an armed resistance.” He reaffirmed this statement in a subsequent interview with Jamuna TV on 21 March 2025, thereby confirming that the leadership of the movement had intended violence from the outset.
    (c) Sadiq Kayem, former President of the Dhaka University Islami Chhatra Shibir, has admitted publicly that he played a key operational role during the July uprising while concealing his real political identity, later revealing it in media appearances. This underscores the deliberate infiltration of violent Political networks into the student movement.
    (d) Md Saidur Rahman Bachchu, a senior BNP leader of Sirajganj District, boasted in a local address that the “backbone of the police broke after killing fifteen policemen at Enayetpur Police Station,” and that this had accelerated the 2024 movement. Such statements amount to open confessions of acts of murder of law-enforcement personnel.
28. That the above examples, drawn from contemporaneous reports, public admissions, and statements of movement leaders, show that the July 2024 events constituted a violent and extremist insurrection, not a civil protest. The prosecution should have taken into consideration of the movement’s transformation into an armed uprising involving killings, arson, and coordinated attacks on state institutions made the Government bound to protect the lives of citizens and preserve public order and as such, the allegations of crime against humanity does not arise at all.
29. That it is stated that considering the law and order situation of the country, the Ministry of Home affairs issued Memo No. 44.00.0000.075.02.001.2024-466 dated 19.07.2024 giving instructions to the concern District Magistrates and Police Commissioners to apply provisions of section 24(1) of the Special Powers Act, 1974 read with relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; and accordingly, Police Commissioners and District Magistrates issued different orders within their own jurisdictions for execution of curfew. The entire process of execution of curfew was under the Ministry of Home Affairs; and the accused-petitioner did not have any scope of involvement therewith.  Moreover, the documents produced by the prosecution in Page Nos. 820-825 clearly show the entire process of execution of curfew. For that reason, the allegations brought against the accused-petitioner regarding his involvement with the implementation of curfew are absolutely baseless.
30. That the Amendment’s brought into the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 giving retrospective effect from 6^th January, 2009 directly offends the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege) recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is a State Party, and the Constitution of Bangladesh. Retroactive criminal legislation, particularly when it expands the scope of criminal responsibility or redefines the elements of the crimes, could potentially undermine the accused’s fundamental right to fair notice and the ability to prepare an effective defence.
31. That the legislative inconsistency introduced by section 3(3) of the Act also undermines the interpretative coherence of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. If, as the section states, the Tribunal is to have regard to the ICC’s Elements of Crimes “to the extent not inconsistent,” then the Tribunal is placed in the untenable position of having to determine, case by case, the hierarchy of norms between the Act of 1973 and the ICC framework an exercise neither anticipated by the Parliament nor guided by any clear rule of conflict resolution.
32. That it is stated that section 4 of the Act, as amended, continues to impose individual and superior responsibility retrospectively, extending liability to acts, omissions, and relationships that did not exist, or could not have been known to attract criminal sanction, at the material time. Such retroactivity goes to the root of legality, rendering the amendments ultravires both the Constitution and Bangladesh’s international obligations. Moreover, the mode of these amendments by Ordinance rather than by parliamentary process raises serious constitutional and institutional concerns. The Ordinance was promulgated during a period when Bangladesh was under administration of an interim government. This creates a structural imbalance between accusation and defence, and erodes the fairness of proceedings.
33. That it is therefore respectfully submitted that the amendments of the Act in 2024, being retroactive, substantively inconsistent, procedurally incomplete, and constitutionally unauthorized, cannot lawfully form the basis of any criminal prosecution under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973. The accused-petitioner’s right to a fair, predictable, and legally certain trial has been materially prejudiced thereby, and any charges relying upon such amended provisions are liable to be rejected and bound to be legally unsafe in the long run.
34. That it is stated that the OHCHR in its fact-finding report categorically recommended to consider the situation described in the said report to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for investigation, in line with Article 14 of the Rome Statute (Para AAAA349). On March 6, 2025 Mr. Toby Cadman, Special Advisor to the learned Chief Prosecutor also urged the Interim Government of Bangladesh to refer the cases of the July-August massacres to the International Criminal Court in The Hague Source: https://cao.portal.gov.bd/site/news/0dc7da01-c24f-4f24-af0c-12fl0c49e691/Toby-Cadman-asks-bd-to-refer-July-massacres-case-to-1CC-change-name-of-ICT]. But the Prosecution without considering the aforementioned recommendations hurriedly submitted the Formal Charge which manifestly shows that the Prosecution is being driven by pressure to conclude the trial by whatever means. In fact, OHCHR was informed that the learned prosecutors are under pressure to move complex cases forward quickly to respond to public demands for justice, while lacking the capacity and resources to investigate, gather evidence, protect witnesses and conduct fair prosecutions through to judgment as evident from Paragraph 254 of the fact-finding report.

SPECIFIC REBUTTALS TO THE CHARGES

Charge No.1: alleged involvement of the accused-petitioner with Anisul Huq, Sheikh Hasina, Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal and leaders of the 14 party alliance in the decision making process of executing curfew and to finish all of them involved with student movement.    

35. That it is submitted that section 3(2)(a) of the Act criminalizes murder as a crime against humanity “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population with knowledge of the attack.”The accused-petitioner neither committed, ordered, nor directed any such act. He was not present in the meeting dated 19.07.2024 held on Gonobhaban nor was he event present in any meeting of the 14 party alliance since its inception and he was also not involved in any commanding position over the law enforcing agencies. It is mentionable here that the leading newspapers published report on 20.07.2024 containing names of the persons present in the meeting of 14 parties alliance at Gonbhobon on 19.07.2024 wherein name of the accused petitioner was not mentioned. So, the accused-petitioner has no connection with the allegations brought against him under Formal Charge No.1. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
36. That it is further submitted that section 3(2)(g) of the Act penalizes “attempt, abetment, conspiracy or incitement to commit” such crimes. The Prosecution has produced no document or material of any actus reus or mens rea demonstrating that the accused-petitioner intended or attempted to facilitate the crimes alleged. Moreover, the leading newspapers published on 20.07.2024 did not contain name of the accused petitioner as a participant of meeting of 14 party alliance held at Gonobhobon on 19.07.2024. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
37. That it is submitted that section 3(2)(h) addresses “complicity in or failure to prevent the commission” of such crimes. The accused-petitioner was not holding any position or authority over the law enforcing agencies at any point of time, and was incapable of directing, supervising, or preventing any law-enforcement action. No evidence shows that he had “effective control” over any armed, disciplined, or administrative body, as required for a finding of responsibility. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
38. That it is submitted that section 4(1)(2) & (3) of the Act deals individual, collective and superior responsibility of  an accused who orders, permits, acquiesces, incites or participates in the commission of such crimes against humanity, or who fails to prevent or punish their subordinates despite having knowledge or reason to know of the crimes.
39. That it is submitted that it is alleged that the accused person has filed 286 false cases involving some 450,000 students. In response to this allegations no document, witness testimony, or other material has been produced by the prosecution that attributes any specific order from the accused to the police or administration to register these 286 so-called false cases against student protesters. At the relevant time, the accused petitioner held the portfolio of Law Minister (Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs), which is primarily concerned with legislation, justice sector policy, and legal affairs, not with operational decisions to register individual criminal cases at police stations.
40. The day-to-day filing of FIRs and maintenance of general diaries fall within the ambit of the Home Ministry and police hierarchy, so there is no institutional nexus placing the initiation of these 286 cases within the accused’s ordinary functions. In the absence of such evidence, the allegation remains a mere assertion in the formal charge and does not satisfy the standard required to establish individual responsibility.
41. That it is submitted that considering the law and order situation of the country, the Ministry of Home affairs issued Memo No. 44.00.0000.075.02.001.2024-466 dated 19.07.20224 giving instructions to the concern District Magistrates and Police Commissioners to apply provisions of section 24(1) of the Special Powers Act, 1974 read with relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; and accordingly, Police Commissioners and District Magistrates issued different orders within their own jurisdictions for execution of curfew. The entire process of execution of curfew was under the Ministry of Home Affairs; and the accused-petitioner did not have any scope of involvement therewith.  Moreover, the documents produced by the prosecution in Page Nos. 820-825 clearly show the entire process of execution of curfew. For that reason, the allegations brought against the accused-petitioner regarding his involvement with the implementation of curfew are absolutely baseless. Hence, the accused-petitioner may kindly be discharged from this case.
42. That it is submitted that the alleged telephone conversation between the accused-petitioner and Mr. Salman F. Rahman even if assumed to be true, though not at all admitted, does not reveal anything incriminating him in any way which comes within the ambit of any offence under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973. Hence, the accused-petitioner may kindly be discharged from this case.

Charge No.2: alleged involvement of the accused-petitioner with Anisul Huq, Sheikh Hasina and leaders of the 14 party alliance in the decision making process of executing curfew and use of lethal weapons to finish the student movement.

43. That it is submitted that the prosecution has alleged that for the purpose of materialization of the decision to exterminate the students movement, on 20.07.2024 the members of law enforcing agencies committed murder of Sifat Hawlader and severely injured countless people by using lethal weapons; and the accused-petitioner did not take any step to stop those atrocities. It is mentionable here that there is no iota of evidence regarding presence/involvement of the accused-petitioner with the alleged decision making process of using lethal weapons upon the student movement; and he was not in a superior/commanding position over the law enforcing agencies to give any instruction/order to stop them from any such alleged occurrences. So, the allegations brought against the accused-petitioner are baseless and not tenable in the eye of law. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
44. That it is submitted that the imposition of curfew, as a measure to preserve public safety during widespread violence, cannot by itself constitute a crime under section 3(2) of the Act. Curfews are lawful administrative tools used worldwide during violent civil unrest. The Prosecution has produced no legal and factual material that the accused-petitioner either recommended or supported the use of excessive force or that any such force was applied pursuant to a directive he endorsed. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.

Charge No.3: Alleged occurrence took place on 28.07.2024 at Mirpur area Dhaka committing murder of Aktaruzzaman and also committing severe injury upon countless people by the members of law enforcing agencies and cadres of Awami League.    

45. That it is submitted that the prosecution has alleged that for the purpose of materialization of the decision to exterminate the students movement, on 28.07.2024 the members of law enforcing agencies committed murder of Aktaruzzaman and severely injured countless people by using lethal weapons; and the accused-petitioner did not take any step to stop those atrocities. It is mentionable here that there is no iota of evidence regarding presence/involvement of the accused-petitioner with the alleged decision making process of using lethal weapons upon the student movement and he was not in a superior/commanding position over the law enforcing agencies to give any instruction/order to stop them from any such alleged occurrences. So, the allegations brought against the accused-petitioner are baseless and not tenable in the eye of law. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
46. That it is submitted that section 4(1) of the Act provides that “any individual who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall be responsible and liable for punishment.” The Prosecution has not identified any individual act or omission by the accused-petitioner amounting to participation in, or contribution to, any of the alleged crimes. The requirement of individual responsibility is wholly unfulfilled. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
47. That it is submitted that section 4(2) further provides that criminal liability arises only where a person “orders, solicits, incites or induces the commission of such a crime” or “aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission.”The Prosecution has failed to present any act or statement by the accused-petitioner meeting these statutory criteria. There is no proof of order, solicitation, inducement, or aid, nor any intentional contribution as envisaged under section 4(2)(d). Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
48. Clause (e) of Section 4(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 (Act No. XIX of 1973) of Bangladesh, as amended (most recently by the International Crimes (Tribunals) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024) stated that

(e) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person’s intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this [Act] for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

49. That it is submitted that on 18.07.2024, the accused person, in a press conference before the Parliament Gangway, requested the students to stop the protest as the government had agreed in principle with the quota reform and also humbly requested to sit with them for further discussion. Moreover, the accused person also emphasized four key points for solving this problem which are as follows:
    – The government is ready to sit with the quota reform protesters and discuss a way out of the current volatile situation prevailing in the country;
    – The accused person former Education Minister Mohibul Hasan Chowdhury and the former state Minister for information & broadcasting Mohammad Ali Arafat have been given the responsibility to sit with the quota protesters;
    – A Judicial Inquiry Committee with High Court Justice Khondker Diliruzzaman as its head to investigate the killings of six people in clashes between the protesters and police was formed; and
    – to petition will be preferred before request the Hon’ble Appellate Division through the Attorney General of Bangladesh to advance the date of the hearing on the Hon’ble High Court’s verdict on quota, which was previously fixed for 7 August 2024.

 

50. That it is most respectfully submitted that the accused person has abandoned the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime under 4(2)(e). Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.

 

51. That it is submitted that no legal and factual material submitted by the prosecution exists that the accused-petitioner exercised “effective control” over any military, paramilitary, or police unit, as would be required for command responsibility under section 4(3) of the Act.

 

52. In order to Joint criminal Enterprise (JCE) Superior responsibility required (i) the existence of a superior and subordinate relationship; (ii) the superior’s failure to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal acts of his subordinates or punish them for those actions; (iii) that the superior knew or had reason to know that a criminal act was about to be committed or had been committed.
53. Furthermore, most important (objective) requirement is implicit in the first requirement, namely the actual ability to exercise effective control over the subordinates so as to prevent them from committing crimes. During the period of the alleged incidents, the accused-petitioner personally was not involved with any of the alleged crimes, and he never concerted with any other person for furthering the alleged crime; and was not in a commanding position over the law enforcing agencies for attracting superior responsibility in connection with the alleged occurrence. No evidence shows that the accused petitioner had “effective control” over any armed, disciplined, or administrative body, as required for a finding of responsibility. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged. The prosecution has not demonstrated that he had any capacity to order, permit, or acquiesce in the conduct of law-enforcement agencies, nor that he had any duty to supervise or prevent the alleged acts which in actuality law Minister refer had or has. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
54. That it is submitted that the claim of “superior responsibility” as brought against the accused-petitioner is misconceived. It is settled principle of law that mere becoming a member of advisory council or cabinet does not suffice to implicate a person for crime against humanity unless he discharges any specific duty by giving command or participating in the policy making with knowledge and sufficient control over the subordinates for implementation of any executive action for the purpose of widespread and systematic killing against civilian population. In the instant case no such act/omission was committed by the accused-petitioner. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.

Charge No.4: Alleged occurrence took place on 04.07.2024 at Mirpur area, Dhaka committing murder of 12(twelve) people and also committing severe injury upon countless people by the members of law enforcing agencies and cadres of Awami League.   

55. That it is submitted that the prosecution has alleged that for the purpose of materialization of the decision to exterminate the students movement, on 04.07.2024 the members of law enforcing agencies committed murder of 12(twelve) people and severely injured countless people by using lethal weapons; and the accused-petitioner did not take any step to stop those atrocities. It is mentionable here that there is no iota of evidence regarding presence/involvement of the accused-petitioner with the alleged decision making process of using lethal weapons upon the student movement and he was not in a superior/commanding position over the law enforcing agencies to give any instruction/order to stop them from any such alleged occurrences. It is further mentionable here that the accused-petitioner did not hold any post in the central committee of Bangladesh Awami League. For that reason, he had no control/command over the members of the Bangladesh Awami League. So, the allegations brought against the accused-petitioner are baseless and not tenable in the eye of law. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.

Charge No.5: Alleged occurrence took place on 05.07.2024 at Mirpur area, Dhaka committing murder of 16(sixteen) people and also committing severe injury upon countless people by the members of law enforcing agencies and cadres of Awami League.   

56. That it is submitted that the prosecution has alleged that for the purpose of materialization of the decision to exterminate the students movement, on 05.07.2024 the members of law enforcing agencies committed murder of 16(sixteen) people and severely injured countless people by using lethal weapons; and the accused-petitioner did not take any step to stop those atrocities. It is mentionable here that there is no iota of evidence regarding presence/involvement of the accused-petitioner with the alleged decision making process of using lethal weapons upon the student movement and he was not in a superior/commanding position over the law enforcing agencies to give any instruction/order to stop them from any such alleged occurrences. So, the allegations brought against the accused-petitioner are baseless and not tenable in the eye of law. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
57. That it is submitted that the imposition of curfew, as a measure to preserve public safety during widespread violence, cannot by itself constitute a crime under section 3(2) of the Act. Curfews are lawful administrative tools used worldwide during violent civil unrest. The Prosecution has produced no legal and factual material that the accused-petitioner either recommended or supported the use of excessive force or that any such force was applied pursuant to a directive he endorsed. Hence, the accused-petitioner may be discharged.
58. That it is submitted that the UC Berkeley Law Salzburg Working Paper (“An Overview of the Use of Digital Evidence in International Criminal Courts,” 2015, available Courts-Salzburg-Working-Paper.pdf) sets out the international evidentiary standards for digital materials, including authentication, hearsay safeguards, provenance, and preservation. Before admitting such evidence, international courts must ensure: Authentication (the method of collection and verification of the digital material), Chain of custody (an unbroken record of how the evidence was obtained and preserved), Provenance and authorship (confirmation of the origin, authorship, and integrity of the data), and Preservation (assurance that the evidence was maintained without alteration). The Prosecution has not met any of these basic standards. The alleged call was never authenticated, no chain of custody has been established, and there is no independent verification that the data was preserved or unaltered.
59. That it is submitted that in Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC- 01/04-01/06) [Source: ] and Prosecutor v. Bemba (No. ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 5 OA 6) , the Court excluded evidence obtained through coercion and improper surveillance, respectively. Likewise, the UC Berkeley Law Salzburg Working Paper titled “An Overview of the Use of Digital Evidence in International Criminal Courts” (2015) recommended that before admitting digital evidence, the international criminal courts must concentrate on authentication (e.g. what procedures were followed during the collection of these phone conversations?), hearsay (e.g., what is the chain of custody? Do the recordings have a strong chain of custody?), provenance (e.g., authorship of the recordings, verification of electronic signature, etc.) and preservation (e.g., whether the recordings were properly preserved before the investigators collected them?). These aforesaid precedents and working paper affirm that the use of unlawfully obtained recordings undermines the fairness of the trial and must be excluded to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.
60. That it is further submitted that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Fact-Finding Report (2025) has been wrongly presented as evidence in the instant criminal proceedings. The said report itself categorically disclaims being a criminal investigation conducted under judicial standards. It expressly states that its findings were based on open-source and testimonial materials, and that it was not intended to determine individual criminal responsibility.
61. That it is submitted that one member of the OHCHR fact-finding team publicly clarified that the report was never meant to be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding, domestic or international. Nevertheless, the prosecution has misrepresented the report by submitting it as substantive evidence before this Tribunal-an attempt to borrow the institutional credibility of the OHCHR (and by extension, the United Nations) to lend false legitimacy to an otherwise deficient case. This is both misleading to the public and contrary to fair-trial principles.
62. That it is further submitted that it is also important to note that the report in question was produced solely under the administrative authority of the. OHCHR and not as a United Nations-mandated investigative mechanism-unlike the Independent International Fact-Finding Missions on Myanmar, Venezuela, or Palestine, which were established through formal resolutions of the Human Rights Council. The present report therefore carries no quasi-judicial or evidentiary status and cannot lawfully be used to sustain criminal charges before this Honourable Tribunal. The prosecution’s reliance upon it constitutes a “legitimacy grab” unsupported by any legal basis.
63. That it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to assess any legal framework governing the use of force by law enforcement or how such framework was allegedly breached. Nor has it shown how the accused’s political position, without any executive role, related to the incidents complained of. In the absence of a demonstrated nexus between the accused’s conduct and any prohibited act under section 3(2) of the Act, the theory of the prosecution collapses.
64. That it is most respectfully submitted that there exists no sufficient ground to frame any charge against the accused-petitioner. The materials presented are speculative, derivative, and legally inadmissible, falling short of the prima facie standard required by section 9(1) of the Act. The prosecution has therefore failed to establish even a triable issue, and the formal charge is liable to be rejected in its entirety.
65. That it is submitted that the Inspector General of Police namely Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun did not disclose any incriminatory statement against the accused-petitioner in his confessional statement recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka. Hence, the accused-petitioner may kindly be discharged from the case.