Summary Judgement

This is the transcript of the summary judgement delivered in court.

Speaker 1: Mr. Judge Nur Mohammad Shahriar Kabir, Member 2

In this case, on 25-09-2025, the learned Chief Prosecutor submitted the formal charge under Section 9(1) of the ICTBD Act. On the same date, the Court took cognizance of the charges against the sole accused. On 23-10-2025 and 28-10-2025, the Court heard the prosecution on the matter of the charges, as well as the discharge petition filed by the accused. Subsequently, on 02-11-2025, the discharge petition was rejected, and a total of eight separate charges were framed against the accused.

The prosecution presented a total of ten witnesses. Out of these, nine witnesses were cross-examined by the defense, with one exception. From the defense side, two witnesses were examined as defense witnesses. Thereafter, from April 2, 2026, to May 14, 2026—a period of approximately six weeks across 14 working days—the summing up and arguments were presented. Following this, the case was kept for CAV [Curia Advisari Vult – judgment to be delivered later]. Today has been fixed for the delivery of the judgment. Now, the 1 no honorable member of the tribunal, Mr. Monjul Bashit, will present some important parts of the judgment to you.”

Speaker 2 (Reading the Judgment): Mr. Judge Md. Manjurul Basit, Member 1

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. As for how many witnesses were examined, Member Number 2 has already stated that. Both sides have submitted a large volume of documentary evidence. Some items have been submitted as material exhibits, which include digital evidence such as video clips and telephone conversations between the accused and the then-Prime Minister.

In this case, we have considered testimonial evidence and documentary evidence, including gazette evidence. One thing that is largely admitted and established is that regarding the ‘July Uprising,’ although there is some variation in numbers—some reports say over 1,400—the gazette list we found (and I need to correct this slightly) contains 846 names. Additionally, we found a list of over 13,000 injured in the gazette. There is no dispute regarding this. Within this short period, the deaths of over a thousand people and the thousands injured—some of whom were severely injured, losing eyes or limbs—is not disputed.

Regarding the charges brought against the accused, the testimony we received—specifically from those in Kushtia—pertains to the killing of six people by gunfire on the 5th and many being injured. However, the main allegation against the accused in this case is not that he personally participated. The primary allegations are conspiracy, incitement, and abetment. Usually, documentary evidence for such allegations is rare. However, the prosecution was very active in this regard and obtained at least two telephone conversations with the then-Prime Minister, the authenticity of which is not disputed. We have commented on this. I will read a portion from page 211. The judgment is quite lengthy because we scanned, marshaled, and appreciated every witness and document. To save space and paper, we have printed it in this format.”

“The contents of the intercepted telephone conversation between the accused Hasanul Haq Inu and then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, as relied upon the prosecution, are reproduced herein below.”

“The question that now falls to determine is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the authenticity, voluntariness, and integrity of the intercepted communication.”Particularly the audio recordings alleged containing conversation between the sheikh hasina and the accused Hasanul Haq Inu. Whether any challenges that is to survive in the light of the evidence that is before the tribunal?

PW-4 and PW-5 examined the authenticity of the voice recording and further testified regarding the manner in which they obtained the said voice recording.

“The integrity of the recording of this Likewise supported by the uninterrupted chain of custody established through the prosecution witness. The evidence demonstrates the lawful acquisition of the recording from NTMC, preservation of the recording on digital media, formal seizure and documentation, and transmission to the investigation agency, forwarding to the CID digital forensic laboratory, forensic examination under controlled laboratory conditions, and production before the tribunal through the competent witness.”

Since this has been established, its authenticity was not cross-examined; however, we have admitted it in certain portions of the judgment that of the two conversations, extensive appreciation was made in the first conversation.

“The conversation reveals that the accused Hasanul Haq Inu was not acting as a detached political observer. Rather, he appears to have been actively discussing operational, strategic, organizational measures aimed at suppressing the ongoing movement. Throughout the conversation, he repeatedly provides advice, recommendations, suggestions concerning the identification, arrest, and neutralization of the person perceived to be involved in the movement.”

“Particularly the significant in this portion, wherein the accused discussed the preparation of lists of persons allegedly leading processions in Uttara, Badda, Gulshan, Jatrabari, and other locations. He stated that local authorities were examining photographs, identifying the individuals, and preparing lists, and further stated that he had instructed that such persons be picked up during the night.”

“He expressly recommends that similar measures be adopted in Dhaka and proposes that persons identified as organizers or leaders of demonstrations be taken into custody so that no further procession would take place.”

“From the first conversation further reveals that the accused repeatedly expressed approval of the government actions already taken. He characterized decisions already adopted as ‘very correct’ and praises operations carried out against demonstrators. Such expressions viewed in isolation may merely constitute political support. However, when read together with his recommendations regarding arrest, preparation of lists, suppression of processions, and continued operations against perceived opponents, they acquire enhanced evidential significance.”

“The Tribunal further notes repeated reference to coordinated action involving political leaders, social actors, law enforcement agency, and state agencies. The accused emphasized the necessity of cooperation among the local leaders, police authorities, and the government structures for identifying and neutralizing the participants in the movement. Such remarks indicate awareness of participation in a broader coordination effort rather than spontaneous or isolated law enforcement measurement.”

There is extensive discussion surrounding the first conversation across an additional four pages, which I am skipping. However, the second conversation is even more detailed, and I have analyzed it under multiple headings in this judgment.

From the second conversation “Nature and character of the conversation. As a matter of first importance, the Tribunal observes that the conversation is not that of a detached political commentator expressing concern over public disorder, nor is it a mere exchange of political opinion. Rather, the conversation reveals an individual who was actively participating in discussion concerning the suppression of the ongoing uprising. The deployment of the state power, the maintenance of coercive pressure upon demonstrators, the mobilization of political cadres, and the formation of strategies to neutralize the opposition activities.”

Now I will read some lines from sub heading. “

The evidence of knowledge of the ongoing state operation. One of the most striking features of the conversation is the accused’s detailed awareness of the development occurring throughout the country. It demonstrates the imposition of curfew, deployment of the armed forces, action of the law enforcement agencies, attack on government installations, district-level administrative response, mobilization of the political cadre, media narratives, and planned government measures.””

Evidence relevant to abetment. The conversation contains several statements indicative of active encouragement and facilitation. Advocacy of continued coercive pressure. Accused repeatedly insists that the “pressure has to be there”. This statement is not made in isolation; it occurs within a discussion concerning curfew enforcement, deployment of security forces, suppression of the ongoing demonstration.”

“Recommendation of a strict curfew regime. The accused advises that ‘if you leave your house, you will be arrested.’ He further advocates public pressure of maximum severity designed to deter persons from participating in the public gatherings.”

“Operational suggestions. It includes extensive public announcement, enhanced enforcement measures, strategic messaging, mobilization of party network. Occupation of public spaces. Such advice constitutes assistance and facilitation.” Moral encouragement. He says, ‘I think the decision was very correct.’ Such endorsement assumes legal significance because they occur in the context of decisions concerning measures already resulted in casualties and mass arrest. The Tribunal therefore finds that the conversation contains substantial evidence from which abetment may reasonably be inferred.”

“Evidence relevant to conspiracy. Share object. The accused and then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina repeatedly discussed maintenance of the curfew, deployment of state forces, suppression of demonstrators, occupation of strategic locations, mobilization of the party cadre, neutralization of the perceived opponents, etc.”

“Coordination of activities. The accused stated, ‘Our party network is ready.’ He further proposes, ‘We will occupy Dhaka with one lakh people.’ This statement revealed organizational preparation involving political structures.”

“Repeated use of the collective expressions such as ‘our network,’ ‘we will take,’ ‘we have to do our homework,’ ‘we have to get people ready,’ indicates coordinated action.”

“Common strategy. The conversation demonstrates agreement concerning control of public places, deployment of political supporters, shaping public narratives, countering the movement. The existence of a common strategy is a powerful indicator of conspiracy.”

“Mobilization of the political cadre. The accused repeatedly proposes mobilization of thousands of supporters from wards, districts, cities throughout the country. These are not spontaneous activities; they require organization, communication, and implementation.”

“The conversation therefore reveals a concerted effort involving multiple actors pursuing a common object.”

“Inference of agreement. The Tribunal is mindful that the conversation is fundamentally an agreement. An agreement need not be formal; it may be inferred from conduct and communication. The present conversation reveals common objectives, coordinated planning, mutual approval, division of roles, and proposed implementation. Taken together, these constitute strong circumstantial evidence of common design.”

“Evidence relevant to incitement. The incitement involves encouraging, persuading, provoking, stimulating others to undertake conduct controlling to the commission of crime.”

“Enforcement of continued operation. The accused repeatedly advocates continuation of the pressure enforcement measures. He stated his statements are not descriptive; they are prescriptive. He is urging action.”

“Call for mass political mobilization. The accused repeatedly proposes cooperation of Dhaka, deployment of one lakh supporters, mobilization of thousands from each ward, coordinated position throughout the country.”

“Promotion of narrative justifying repression. The accused repeatedly characterized the movement as terrorism, militant terrorism, subversive activity. He expressly stated, ‘We will play this card now.’ The Tribunal considers this statement significant. The deliberate propagation of a narrative portraying opponents as terrorists may serve to legitimize and encourage harsh measures against them.”

“Call for immediate action. The accused repeatedly urged urgent implementation of measures. His language is exhortatory rather than mere analytical. The conversation demonstrates attempts to influence government and organizational conduct. Such conduct falls squarely within the concept of incitement.”

There are three interviews. The first interview, it was brought here through scanning. Exhibit 15 series, and material exhibit four containing the 10361 video recordings of the interview and statement of the accused, Hasanul Haq Inu, broadcast from Mirror Now, News 24 and RTV Tech. We also… what did we call it, we have provided this. By doing this, in the same way, we also found many such words there. In this case also, we have found several words of this kind which support the main charges.”

The report of the news portal, 15th of July, uprising exhibit 16 series. This includes Manab Zamin, Jugantor, The Daily Star, and at various times, regarding different matters about his statements, including his presence there, and with various yeah, we have also done this in the exact same way with scanning, marshalling, and apparently there is a lot of it. After that, what we from the beginning… we didn’t find, in any other special case.

The arguments presented during the summing up were structured into six distinct parts, incorporating extensive citations, numerous international case laws, and relevant articles from various international charters—all of which have been thoroughly addressed in this judgment. Each point has been decided strictly on its merits, whether it favored or went against the prosecution. Consequently, certain charges have been proved, while others have not been proven.

(Findings on Charges):
“Having meticulously considering the entire body of oral, documentary, and directory evidence.Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence relating to the Charge Number 1, Charge Number 2, Charge Number 4, Charge Number 5, and 8, the Tribunal finds that prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the constituent elements necessary to attract criminal liability under the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973.”
“Although the surrounding circumstances demonstrate the existence of the widespread violence and grave violations committed during the relevant period, the evidence placed before the Tribunal falls short of proving the direct and individual criminal responsibility of the accused in respect of those specific charges.”

(proved charges)
“The position however is materially different with regard to Charge Number 3, in part, 6 and 7.  The evidence adduced before the Tribunal, particularly the intercepted telephone conversation, the authenticated audio and video recording, the media interview voluntarily given by the accused, documentary exhibits, the proceedings and decision of the meeting of the 14-party alliance, the surrounding circumstances together with the credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses when appreciated in their proper factual context, establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly and intentionally participated in the common design aimed at suppressing the student-public movement through unlawful means.”

“The Tribunal is satisfied that the accused was not merely a passive political observer. Rather, he consciously endorsed and promoted the narrative portrayed the protesters as militants, communal forces, terrorists, participated in the formation and approval of the measures directed against the movement, supported the decision to ban Jamaat-Shibir as part of the wider strategy of criminalizing and through his public statement, interview, and communications with the highest executive authority of the state, intentionally encouraged, facilitated the implementations of the common criminal design.”

“The evidence further demonstrates that these acts were neither isolated political opinions nor innocent expressions of ideological disagreement. They constituted deliberate contribution to the coordinated policy where the student-public movement was portrayed as an existential threat requiring violent suppression.”

“Such conduct substantially assisted, encouraged, facilitated the commission of the prosecutions and other crimes against humanity carried out throughout the country during the relevant period. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the accused’s conduct satisfies the legal ingredients of conspiracy, instigation, aiding and abetting, and participation in the commission of the crimes against humanity within the meaning of Section 3, Subsection 2(A) 2(G), 4(1) to 4(5), etc. etc.”

Speaker 3: Mr. Justice Nozrul Islam Chowdhury, Chairman

“You have heard the judgment delivered by the Tribunal…”

“You have heard the judgment delivered by the tribunal. A portion of it has been pronounced before you, but the full text will be provided to you. You will receive the full judgment within two to three weeks. Now, I am going to read the operative portion of the judgment so that you can all understand the result and what we have ultimately found in this case. I have translated the ordering portion into Bengali and will read from that.”

Speaker 3 (Sentence Pronouncement):
“The accused, Hasanul Haq Inu… is found guilty under Charge Number 3 for the torture of Raisul Haq and other victims, and for persecution on political grounds. Under the section 3 (2) (a) (g), section 4(1), Section 4(2) and section 20(2) and section 20A of the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973, he is sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Under Charge Number 6, for conspiracy, incitement, and complicity in crimes against humanity, he is sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay 1 lakh Taka in compensation under the section 3 (2) (a) (g), section 4(1), Section 4(2) and section 20(2) and section 20A of the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973.

Under Charge Number 7, for conspiracy and agreement to commit crimes against humanity, he is sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay 1 lakh Taka in compensation under the section 3 (2) (a) (g), section 4(1), Section 4(2) and section 20(2) and section 20A of the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973.

The accused is acquitted of Charges 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8.

All sentences against the accused shall run concurrently. To clarify: although he received 10 years on three counts, the sentences will run at the same time, meaning the total duration of imprisonment will be 10 years. That is all regarding today’s judgment. Thank you all.”