Prosecution Closing Arguments

7 May

The allegations against the accused were for command responsibility. Mainly, ten pieces of evidence have been presented, from PW1 to PW10. Among them, PW2 and PW10 are the Investigating Officers in this case. PW10 is solely the Investigating Officer, and they have been examined. PW3 and PW9 are seizure list witnesses, consisting of an Assistant Sub-Inspector and a constable. Five material exhibits have been submitted.

The first is the voice sample of the accused, which is Material Exhibit I.

The second consists of three audio clips of the accused, presented by PW2 as Material Exhibit II.

Next is a three-minute video with ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, as Material Exhibit III.

Then, three video clips from Mirror Now as Material Exhibit IV and

Several video clips of the July uprising as Material Exhibit V.

A total of twenty exhibits have been submitted.

(Reading out all the exhibits serially with page numbers)

Regarding the question raised by the defense from DW1 about Zulkarnain’s post of the audio call of the accused, specifically how the prosecution obtained the recording of that audio call before it was leaked on Zulkarnain’s Facebook page:

First of all, I would like to state that it was completely improper for the defense to assume that the prosecution had not obtained the audio from any other source before it came to light through a Facebook post on August 17, 2025, and to treat that assumption as the absolute truth and raise concerns based on it, because the complaint was recorded on March 25, 2025, and the deposition of PW1 was recorded on June 18, 2025, PW3 on June 17, PW7 on June 20, and PW8 on June 19, Your Honor.

Furthermore, I would first like to refer to the testimony of PW2, Tanvir Hasan Zoha, who is the Investigating Officer.

(Reading out the testimony)

Here, it is clearly stated that the audio clip was seized on December 25, 2024, which is long before Zulkarnain’s post. The Investigating Officer seized it and also sent it for forensic examination to Lawrence on June 1, 2025. Even if a witness does not state something to the Investigating Officer, can it not be stated before the Tribunal? It certainly can be, Your Honor; there is no bar. Even if we assume that they stated the wrong date, or did not see or hear it, if the audio is proved to be authentic, will that evidence be invalidated, Your Honor? Will it become unacceptable? Certainly not.

Mr. Judge Md. Manjurul Basit, Member:
Widespread and systematic—this must be proven separately in this case. Keep in mind that even if it was established in another case, it must still be proven here.

Prosecutor Mizanul:
Yes. The principle of another case is applicable, even if it is a different case. Therefore, I accept that even if it was proven in another case, it must be proven separately in this case. However, since the context is the same, the same principle will be applicable to this case as well.

Now, coming to the main arguments raised by the defense: they argue that the accused did not hold superior responsibility or a commanding position, nor did the accused possess commanding power. Secondly, they argue that in the interviews broadcast on media outlets like Mirror Now, RTV, etc., the accused supported the movement and sought reforms.

Now, for the prosecution’s arguments. Firstly, there was superior responsibility and command authority. Secondly, he labeled the protesters as terrorists and instigated the use of maximum force against them. If we can prove these two points, I believe the case will be in our favor, Your Honor. The double standards of the accused have been shown here—two different faces. This is what we will prove.

Mr. Judge Md. Manjurul Basit, Member:
Show me word by word how you intend to prove this.

Prosecutor Mizanul:
The main allegation is based on his statements. So, we will demonstrate which specific sentences form the basis of the charges, or which sentences are incriminating. First, I am reading the second paragraph of the Mirror Now interview, Exhibit 15, from the available transcription.

(Reading out the second paragraph of the Mirror Now interview)

Now, I am reading the Channel 24 interview, Exhibit 15, dated July 27, 2024.

(Reading out the transcription of that interview)

From this, we can understand that Inu advised the government to bring the situation under control, yet the defense claims that Hasanul Haq Inu had no relationship or connection with the government. I would like to read this entire audio, which consists of a 2-minute 56-second audio conversation between Sheikh Hasina and Hasanul Haq Inu. It is dated July 20, 2024, and is on pages 6 to 7, recorded around 2:00 PM.

(Reading out the whole audio conversation)

Your Honor, I will read all of them first, and then I will proceed to the analysis. This audio clip shows that she tells him to bomb directly from the helicopter. One has to understand the tone, Your Honor. The defense stated that after the mention of direct bombing, Inu said, Oh, I see, sound bomb.

Then Inu also told her to turn on the internet. At that point, Sheikh Hasina said, Where would I get the internet? Then he also said that Jamaat must be dismantled.

I am now reading out the transcription of another conversation.

(Reading out the whole conversation of August 4, 2024)

I am reading out the Bengali translation of the interview transcript given to Mirror Now, from seizure list 2.

(Reading out the whole transcription of July 18, 2024)

(Now reading out the interview of News 24 on July 27, 2024, from seizure list 2.)

(Now reading out the RTV interview of Hasanul Haq Inu on July 29, 2024.)

The statement given by Inu regarding the proposal to impose a curfew is dated July 19, 2024. The last part I read is not evidence; I brought it before this Tribunal just to explain the background, Your Honor.

Now, I will present our points one by one.

Firstly, among the injured witnesses who were shot in Kushtia, we did not just bring witnesses who were shot in the leg. There are also prosecution witnesses who were shot in the ribs, Your Honor.

The second point: in the conversation on July 27, 2024, Inu said, Apa, whatever you have done, you did well, you did the right thing. It was a good job. This means that he supported the killings that took place on July 17, 18, and 19, prior to July 20, and he also supported the curfew. He supported the acts of shooting and killing people across the country.

The third point is that regarding the mention of sound grenades, Inu said it only as a figure of speech because he had already supported the killings, and the tone in which Hasina spoke about direct bombing certainly did not refer to sound grenades.

The fourth point is that Hasanul Haq Inu supported the killings, instigated them, and the police along with the leaders of the 14-party alliance carried out the attacks.

The fifth point is that Inu told her to turn on the internet. This means the network was intentionally shut down.

In PW2, the defense suggested that the voice in the audio does not belong to Inu, yet during arguments, they claim that a certain portion of this audio carries a specific meaning, trying to interpret it in their own way. Therefore, conflicting pleas and contradictory pleas cannot be made simultaneously, Your Honor. There is absolutely no scope for the defense to take conflicting pleas here.

I would like to read out Section 4 of the ICT Act. Our case is primarily based on this section. The defense has submitted a video showing a fire and claiming that saboteurs started it. However, they could not produce the person who recorded the video or any eyewitness to testify.

The report in Bhorer Kagoj stated that Jamaat-Shibir killed police officers and hung them, but the defense has failed to submit any valid evidence of this. There is no journalist or eyewitness from the newspaper who can testify regarding this report, and they have not been able to produce anyone, nor will they be able to. The defense repeatedly mentions Jamaat-Shibir but has failed to prove it.

Mr. Judge Md. Manjurul Basit, Member:
Have you read the entire news report? I am asking both sides.

Prosecutor Mizanul:
I have read all the portions that I submitted, Your Honor.

Mr. Judge Md. Manjurul Basit, Member:
It is your responsibility to provide a full and true disclosure of all facts.

Prosecutor Mizanul:
No, Your Honor. Actually, as per Section 12(3), the prosecution is not obliged to make full disclosure. Here, Section 3(2) states that whether domestic law is violated or not… Therefore, Your Honor, even if a curfew is legal, the perpetrator will not receive immunity if they commit a crime on that basis. I would like to bring this matter to your attention. Also, the ICT Act is a special law, and an overriding clause is specifically mentioned in it.

Chairman:
Tell me one thing: is killing a human and killing a terrorist the same thing?

Prosecutor Mizanul:
Of course they are not the same, Your Honor. But biologically or morally, no one can be killed without the interpretation and verdict of the court. A persona can only be killed strictly in self-defense. Therefore, under Section 3(2)(a), (g), and (h), and Section 4(1), (2), and (3), the prosecution has succeeded in proving the crimes.

The defense asked whether an investigation was conducted regarding six FIRs. Lastly, I would like to state regarding this matter that the Investigating Officer is only required to investigate this specific case and is not obliged to investigate other cases, as per the ICT Act and Rules. That is all from the prosecution’s side, Your Honor. Much obliged.

13 May.

14 May

Prosecution: What’s the burden on behalf of the prosecution, this question came up yesterday. So, the International Crimes Tribunal Act acts as international law, and by this law, the Code of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act are bypassed.

Tribunal: Special law prevails over general law. Although this is similar to domestic law, the crimes here involve international definitions.

Prosecution: The charge we have framed is under Section 9.

Tribunal: Section 9 has international value.

Prosecution: On what basis has the defense presented these pieces of evidence?

Tribunal: The figures they mentioned might vary, but their claim that they had no responsibility cannot be denied.

Prosecution: Regarding their claim that there was no “superior responsibility” of the accused is inaccurate. His political leadership position placed him squarely within a superior-subordinate relationship. His stance is: “I was not part of the government, so I don’t have to bear any responsibility.” But, his denial of a formal government role is entirely irrelevant to his liability under Section 4(3) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973.

My Lord, the 14-Party alliance was with the Awami League during 2014–2018 as well. They were in existence.

I will read out the literal definition of “organization” from the definition taken from NATO:

“According to the NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (AAP-06) — an organization is an administrative and functional structure established at any command level, possessing a defined mission, functions, and internal relationships.”

The definition of NATO also mentions collective decision-making, which demonstrates an organized structure and shared objectives among its members.

My Lord, you will see the role played by the accused in the July movement. He did not deny the conversation. He stated that he supported the government to suppress the terrorists.

(Page 5-6) He is the head of the 14-Party alliance. On July 20, 2024, he called the Prime Minister. It is not as if Sheikh Hasina called him. Therefore, he is not just a general member of the 14-Party alliance. He possessed the power to call the Prime Minister.

Tribunal: The intent must be examined here.

Prosecution: Yes, My Lord. I want to demonstrate his intent. When he called, Sheikh Hasina said, “They will descend from the sky, bombing will be conducted via helicopter, you will keep me informed.”

Then Hasanul Huq Inu said, “Catching those leading on the ground is the main priority rather than capturing Rizvi. I have ordered the SP of Kushtia district to take action.” He is making all the decisions here, My Lord.

On the next page (page 7), he said to tell them to “do some homework” and to “arrest them today.”

Inu held all the power here. He also had knowledge regarding Mr. Palak’s meeting about the internet shutdown.

What was the purpose of imposing a curfew before the 20th?

Hasanul Huq Inu said, “I have spoken with my colleague regarding the curfew.” After that, he spoke about “divide and rule.” At 8:00 PM in an interview on 71 TV, he said, “I would say, the government has no conflict with the protesters. Here, the conflict is with the saboteur BNP.”

My Lord, his intention was to create propaganda.

What kind of statement is this?

He is not discussing the logicality of the movement. He lacks political goodwill.

In the call, the Prime Minister further says, “On this pretext, catch all the Shibir members and break the backbone of Jamaat-Shibir.”

Prosecution: When a political leader speaks like this publicly in the media, whom is he representing?

Would so many school students and so many people have died otherwise? Is there a political statement in their speech, or will it be criminalized? There are certain terms under ‘criminalization’ in the Rome Statute.

Till  4 August, no change occurred in his role. He called the PM again; he called of his own accord.

There, in the call, Hasanul Huq Inu told the PM, “I think the decision was correct.” This decision refers to another conversation with Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, where they said to “finish off” everyone who breaks the curfew.

Here, they imposed a nationwide curfew. Hasanul Huq Inu further said, “I believe imposing the curfew was exactly the right move.”

I’d like to discuss the curfew here. Under Section 24 of the Special Powers Act, 1974:

(1) The District Magistrate [or the Police Commissioner in [a Metropolitan Area]] may, subject to the control of the Government, by order direct that, subject to any exemption specified in the order, no person present within any area or areas specified in the order shall, between such hours as may be specified in the order, be out of doors except under the authority of a written permit granted by a specified authority or person.

(2) If any person contravenes any order made under this section, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Prosecution: For what purpose did they impose the curfew? After saying so much, if he claims he was not involved in the government-imposed curfew, it sounds very strange. It’s even a betrayal of the 14-Party alliance.

In the conversation, Hasanul Huq Inu says, “The curfew should be such that anyone leaving the house is arrested. However, it will be stated that there will be no shooting— this [shooting] will be between you and me [a secret between us].” He said this to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

The “Floor Committee” met at the Home Minister’s house. Several people, including Mr. Harun, used to come; at a specific time, they would sit for the meeting. It’s all in the records, My Lord. Hasanul Huq Inu spoke with DCs and SPs before the Floor Committee meetings took place.

Later, what the PM Sheikh Hasina said in the phone call was that, “What you’re saying is right, the pressure must be maintained.”

Hasanul Huq Inu is saying, “I also believe this is correct.”

Here, My Lord, their statement—”Shooting [will be] between you and me,” — this is criminalizing.

Tribunal: You mean to say that this word is not innocent; they are denying it.

Prosecution: The interpretation the prosecution has derived from their words is that the matter would remain among themselves. The army would demonstrate maximum force, and the talk of shooting would remain between them [in secret].

Tribunal: You are suggesting that, this was done with criminal intent?

Prosecution: They used “terrorists” for classification; they want to mislead the nation by claiming that BNP-Jamaat is misguiding the people and that the movement does not belong to general students.

In their conversation, they meant to convey, “Your party and our party [allies] will occupy the entire Dhaka city.” They would spread false propaganda that a militant attack had occurred.

Tribunal: What was the movement’s weapon? Militant attacks?

Prosecution: They said they would carry out such propaganda that a militant attack has occurred, leading the general public to resist. The PM stated that she was advised by various international fronts to label it as a militant attack.

My Lord, a significant term used by the accused is “fire terrorism” (agun shontrash) which was commonly used in 2008. Isn’t supporting the comment to label it as a militant attack also criminal conduct?

The PM moreover tells Hasanul Huq Inu, “The ousted ones have resorted to militant attacks.” My Lord, thousands of innocent people were killed here over the past 14 years in the name of “militant attacks” through this drama. Attempts have also been made to label the 2024 movement as a militant attack.

I have received thousands of cases, for example — where six people in a single household were shot dead at once in the name of being “militants.” Will there ever be justice for these?

After all this, can the accused still be called a people-loving, pro-people politician?

On the call, they said, “If any student joins the ousted ones, I will not take this responsibility.”

The PM asks Inu, “Why aren’t you saying anything?”

They also discussed the Communist Party—Inu mentioned liaising with Junaid Saki, the chief coordinator of the Gonosamhati Andolon (Mass Solidarity Movement). The PM then asked, “Why are you giving such privileges to these parties?”

Then Inu said, “Since today is over, let’s plan for the coming days. The curfew needs to appear very strict in body language. If kept in jail for 10 hours after arrest, the message will spread that breaking the curfew leads to shooting and the sound of gunfire will create more fear and certainty of consequences. It’s not a ‘relaxed curfew,’ but a ‘strict’ one—this needs to be understood.”

My Lord, they haven’t denied any casualties. They provided this explanation in the previous judgment.

This matter falls under, Section 3-Jurisdiction of Tribunal and crimes :

2(a) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment, abduction, confinement, torture, rape, sexual exploitation, enforced disappearance, human trafficking, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization or other inhumane acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population with knowledge of the attack or persecutions on political, racial, ethnic or religious grounds, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated;

My Lord, the phrase “with knowledge of attack” must be kept in mind regarding a political figure.

Section 4 – Liability of Crimes :

(2) In accordance with this Act, any individual or group of individuals, or any member of any disciplined force, auxiliary force or intelligence agency shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal if that person:

(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;

Thus, leadership responsibility and aggression will be included according to this section. ‘Crimes against peace’ will also be therefore included in here.

Tribunal: Crimes against peace? That’s general jurisdiction.

Prosecution: My Lord, it’s very helpful that you brought this up. “Crimes against peace” also appeared in the Nuremberg Trials.

Section 3(2)(g),(h), under which the mention of “failure to prevent”—this liability also remains. Physical presence is not required.

Tribunal: Here, the planning is more noticeable than the physical presence.

Prosecution: My Lord, this liability is also mentioned in the Rome Statute. A person remains liable for the planning, whether physical presence exists or not.

Tribunal: There is a headline “Lack of Jurisdiction” in a judgment. Have you seen the mentioned lacking of time and jurisdiction on page 22 of that judgment?

Prosecution: No, My Lord, I will look into it. The authorization of the organization is mentioned in a similar judgment.

Tribunal: We have explained this under Article 7 of the Rome Statute in another judgment.

Prosecution: My Lord, their statement was that militants primarily conducted this movement, but our stance is that there were no militants here. It was not something like “terrorists versus. government.”

Here, the government failed to understand the language and demands of the people of an independent country. That is why, when they want to achieve their interests by labeling innocent people as terrorists, it is a “Crimes against Humanity.” My Lord, the prosecution’s plea is for a proper trial.

State Defense: My Lord, our plea was that some matters beyond the submitted evidence have come up. Additionally, the submissions of Prosecutor Mizan and the Chief Prosecutor contain conflicting statements.

Tribunal: That is not for you to say. CAV [Curia Advisari Vult] is granted. The next date will be informed later.