Discharge application

Here is the key text extracted from the discharge application  filed by Palak

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 ICTBD Case No.07 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), 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.
3. That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 1 to 1.25 of the Formal Charge politically motivated to which the accused-petitioner has no involvement and the same are denied.
4. That the Formal Charge submitted by the prosecution contains faulty and distorted version of the history and lacks complete factual background.

THE QUOTA-PROTEST MOVEMENT

5. In July and August 2024, Bangladesh witnessed a violent uprising against the country’s long-time leadership of the Awami League. A movement demanding for abolition of the quota in 9th grade government services ultimately turned into a violent uprising against the Government which caused the death of many innocent civilians, members of police force, physical attacks on members of disciplined forces, police stations, State establishments etc.
6. 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.”
7. In pursuance 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 is found, those positions were filled from the merit list of general candidates.
8. 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 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.
9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Circular dated 4th 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 challenging the legality of the said Circular.
10. On 5th June 2024, one Divisional 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 is of no legal effect.
11. On the next day students came to the streets and brought out protest, marches 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 the retraction 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 operation of the High Court’s Judgment and the Judge-in-Chamber of the Appellate Division fixed 4th July for hearing the said Petition by the full Court of the Appellate Division.
12. On 4th July the Advocate for the respondent sought time due to personal reasons and the Appellate Division adjourned the hearing. Since the matter was sub judice before the Apex Court of the Country, the Government had no option but to wait for the outcome of the legal proceeding and the Government repeatedly urged the students to wait till disposal of the matter by the Appellate Division.
13. On the next day of hearing, i.e. 10th July, 2024, the Appellate Division directed the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the subject matter and asked the Government to file a regular Leave-To-Appeal. But 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 already subjudice before the highest Court of the country.
14. Thereafter, the full text of the Judgment of the High Court Division was released on 14th July 2024. On the same day, a delegation of quota reform protesters presented their memorandum to President Mohammed Shahabuddin at Bangabhaban, i.e. the Official Residence of the President, giving an ultimatum of 24 (Twenty Four) hours to reinstate the Government circular of 2018. On the other hand, upon receipt of the full Judgment of the High Court Division the Government filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal on 16th July, 2024 and the Hon’ble Appellate Division was kind enough to fix 7th August 2024 for hearing of the said Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal.
15. 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 misinterpreted and taken negatively among 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 15th 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.
16. On 18th 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 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, 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 20th July 2024,
17. On 21 July 2024, the full bench of the Appellate Division led by the then Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan set aside the High Court’s Judgment dated 5th 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.
18. After the disposal of the quota issue by the Apex Court, the organizers of the movement came up with a new demand seeking justice for killing of students immediately. On the other hand, Mr. Manzur Al Matin, an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh along with others filed a Writ Petition being No. 9610 of 2024 before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh seeking directions upon the iaw enforcement agencies not to shoot at quota reform protesters during their programs. The Division Bench of the High Court Division comprising of Mr. Justice Mustafa Zaman Islam and Mr. Justice S M Masud Hossain Dolon after hearing the parties rejected the said Writ Petition summarily vide order dated 4th August, 2024. However, the Court observed that all citizens have the right to participate in peaceful assemblies and emphasized that the police must follow legal directives.
19. Meanwhile on 1 August, 2024 the Government increased the number of members of the judicial commission of inquiry by adding two more High Court judges, but nothing could calm the protesters down. On 3rd August, 2024 the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina called upon student protesters to meet her at Gonobhaban (the official residence of the Prime Minister) to discuss about their demands, but the organizers/coordinators of the protest demanded resignation of the Prime Minister which ultimately led the Bangladesh Army to shift the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from the country on 5th August 2024.
20. The historical facts mentioned in the formal charge, but not addressed here, are those that are either not supported by facts or irrelevant to the present case. As such, those distorted and/or irrelevant factual claims presented by the Prosecution may be ignored.

ACTUAL NATURE OF THE JULY 2024 MOVEMENT: FROM PROTEST TO VIOLENT INSURRECTION

21. That it is submitted that the “Quota Reform Movement” of July-August 2024, which the prosecution characterises 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 institutions, which is not considered in the formal charge and as such, the same is liable to be rejected.
22. That it is further submitted that the investigation agency along with the learned 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 and to use necessary and proportionate means to restore order. The same obligation would rest upon any government in the world faced with such acts of mass violence. A few illustrative examples are-
23. a) on 19 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 organised armed uprising rather than a student demonstration. [Sources: https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/one-year-narsingdi-jailbreak-177-inmates-still-large-3943166 https://www.dhakatribune.com/352682 and
24. b) on 4 August 2024, thirteen policemen were burnt to death in the attack on Nayetpur 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. https://www.thedailystar. net/news/bangladesh/news/13-cops-killed-attack-police-station-sirajganj-3669641][Source:
25. 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 [Source: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/nation/ 361394/kamr angirchar-police-station-recovery-slow-after]
26. That it is respectfully submitted that the learned prosecution also failed to consider the admission of prominent organisers which proves that the movement was infiltrated by terrorists who had both intention and knowledge to kill law enforcement agency officials, vandalise and burn police stations and government offices and destroy mega public structures. The prosecution has wilfully disregarded the following statements: a. Hasib Al-Islam, a coordinator of the quota reform movement, stated in a televised interview on DBC News (26 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 and instrumentalised as a political weapon. b. On 13 November 2024, Asif Mahmud ShojibBhuyain, 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.” impartiality in view of his party’s public justification of such violence. d. 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 Islamist networks into the student movement. e. 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.
27. 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 learned prosecution should have taken into consideration the movement’s transformation into an armed uprising involving killings, arson, and coordinated attacks on State institutions imposed upon the Government, a constitutional and moral duty to protect the lives of citizens and preserve public order and as such, the accused-petitioner is liable to be discharged.

STANCE OF ZUNAID AHMED PALAK ON THE QUOTA MOVEMENT

25. The accused-petitioner‘s statements on 16.07.2024 was published on 17^th July 2024 in the Daily Janakantho in respect of internet issue a urged all the parties cooperation  for a peaceful resolution of the problems which reads as follows:
    “He said, if the government does not cooperate in preventing propaganda and rumors, we will be forced to take strict legal action against social media platforms including Facebook and YouTube. We request everyone to be vigilant in this regard. They should not indulge in any kind of false rumors. If we do not get cooperation from them in preventing such false propaganda and rumors, we will be forced to take strict legal action against them.”
26. On 15 July 2024, the petitioner said in his facebook status regarding which a report was published in the daily Jugantor which is reproduced below;

“The anti-quota movement suddenly erupted on Sunday night. Discussions on social media began on the issue of freedom fighters and Razakars from the afternoon. Protests against the Prime Minister’s decision, including those at Dhaka University. Students of other universities also declared themselves Razakars and started chanting various slogans. ‘You and me, Razakars-Razakars’, ‘Who said who said, ww government-government’, ‘Razakars are coming, the highway is shaking’, ‘I wanted rights, I became Razakars’ and various slogans.

Amidst the tense situation on various campuses, State Minister for Information and Communication Technology, Zunaid Ahmed Palak, has spoken out against the rioters. He posted a status on social media Facebook at 12:15 am on Sunday from a verified ID, criticizing the slogans of the rioters.

……The student protesters were massacred at Dhaka University on March 25th ww ww ww Razakars, aren’t they ashamed to shout slogans like “Read the Razakars, respect the Razakars?” He wrote in the caption of the photo, “Who are you? Who am I? Bengali, Bengali. Your address is Padma-Meghna-Jamuna.” He wrote in the caption of the photo, “The weapon of 1971, let it roar once again. You Razakars, leave Bengal right now.” Meanwhile, the incident began on Sunday afternoon after the Prime Minister’s press conference organized by the China tour Upaldo at Ganabhaban. Although ordinary students had been keeping the streets busy in the movement demanding quota reform for a few days.

In response to a journalist’s question at a press conference, the Prime Minister said, “Why so much hatred against the freedom fighters? If their grandchildren don’t get it, will the grandchildren of the Razakars get it? This is a question for my countrymen. What is their crime? Their own lives,

Those who participated in the liberation war, leaving their families behind, fighting day and night, going without food, crossing mud and sand, and facing storms and rain, brought victory to the world. Today, everyone is in high positions because they brought victory. Today, they can speak with their voices raised. Otherwise, they would have been kicked by the Pakistanis’ boots.

27. The petitioner made another statement which was published in the daily Ittafeq:
    “Facebook is responsible for the widespread clashes and loss of life across the country due to the spread of false information.” The State Minister for Information Technology said that the government is concerned about the incidents of violence and loss of life across the country. In the current situation, I appeal to the students to be patient. Students should not take any decision without checking and verifying anything on social media. Palak, urging the students not to choose the violent path at the instigation of the third www, said that the expression of emotions should be done with conscience. Although the government requested to take steps to stop the spread of false rumors on the www during the quota movement, social Palak including Facebook said, we are not listening to the media. Junaid Ahmed Palak is in touch with the Facebook authorities, if their data center was in Bangladesh, then at any moment they could have blocked any content that spreads rumors or flagged that content. Easy would be easy. …”
28. On 3^rd August, 2024, the Daily Protham Alo, the statement is reproduced below:

“State Minister Junaid Ahmed said, ‘If I have done anything wrong to the younger generation, I am publicly apologizing. I take responsibility for the internet disruption and failure to prevent rumors on social media.’ I promise to accept any decision. I think that the distance that has arisen is not the fault of the students. It is our fault. This responsibility lies with us, who have failed to fulfill our responsibilities. We have no chance of avoiding this failure. This failure is mine too.’ The State Minister further said, ‘The distance that has been created cannot be resolved by taking tough decisions against them. It has to be resolved with the right tools. If we do not choose the path of discipline with tough decisions, but are sensitive to them, sit with them with affection and compassion, and listen to them, then we believe that this distance of misunderstanding will definitely be removed and the efforts of the conspirators will not succeed.’ Referring to that, Junaid Ahmed said, ‘We have to take initiatives to remove the distance and misunderstanding that has been created. We have to do it from our homes, neighbors and institutions. We have to understand the language of the eyes of the students and brothers. We have to understand their minds.’

29. That from the statement made by the petitioner as above were descriptive assessments of unfolding facts, not directives to commit unlawful acts. There was no call to violence, no exhortation to commit any enumerated crime under section 3(2) (a), (g), (h), 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973and no instruction to target civilians or a protected group.

RETROACTIVE MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES (TRIBUNALS)ACT 1973

30. That it is noted that the International Crimes (Tribunals) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024 (Ordinance No. XIV of 2024), promulgated in September 2024 and given retrospective effect from 6 January 2009, introduced significant amendments to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973. These amendments substantially altered the definitions of core crimes under section 3(2), including the expansion of crimes against humanity and the modification of the definition of genocide by omitting “political group” from the list of protected categories, and the insertion of a new section 3(3) importing, in part, the Elements of Crimes adopted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) pursuant to Article 9 of the Rome Statute. The section of Liability of Crimes has also been heavily amended.
31. That it is noted that section 3(3) on ICC’s Elements of Crimes, as inserted, reads as follows:”For the purpose of determining liability under sub-section (2), a Tribunal shall have regard to the Elements of Crime of the International Criminal Court (ICC), as adopted pursuant to Article 9 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.”This conditional incorporation clause represents a fundamental inconsistency in legislative design. It purports to import international standards of criminalliability while simultaneously subordinating them to the Tribunal’s domestic provisions “where inconsistent,” thereby nullifying the very harmonisation it claims to achieve
32. That it is submitted that such partial and conditional adoption of the ICC’s Elements of Crimes is interally contradictory and jurisprudentially unsound. The Elements of Crimes of the ICC are not a menu of options. They form an integrated and coherent interpretative framework inseparable from the procedural and evidentiary guarantees of the Rome Statute. To “adopt” them only insofar as they do not contradict the 1973 Act results in an incoherent hybrid regime Í a legislative camouflage designed to create an appearance of compliance with international standards without actually ensuring substantive or procedural parity.
33. That it is further submitted that the 2024 Amendment’s retroactive application from 6 January 2009 directly offends the principle of legality (nullumcrimen sine lege, nullapoena sine lege) recognised 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.
34. 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 ultra vires both the Constitution and Bangladesh’s international obligations.
35. That it is further submitted that the mode of enactment of these amendments Í by Ordinance rather than by parliamentary process Í raises serious constitutional and institutional concerns. The Ordinance was promulgated during a period when Bangladesh was under the authority of an Interim Government led by a body of Advisers exercising limited executive functions under the President.
36. That it is submitted that the selective incorporation of the ICC’s Elements of Crimes under section 3(3), without corresponding adoption of the ICC’s procedural safeguards, renders the Tribunal’s legal framework internally inconsistent and misleading. The ICC’s substantive definitions operate within a procedural regime of the highest standard, encompassing disclosure obligations, presumption of innocence, right to counsel, equality of arms, protection of the accused’s rights, and the strict exclusion of tainted evidence under Article 69(7) of the Rome Statute. By importing substantive definitions alone, while ignoring the procedural foundations that make those definitions workable, the 2024 Amendment creates a façade of internationalisation without actual conformity.
37. That it is stated that this asymmetry between substance and procedure is not merely academic but has practical consequences. It allows the prosecution to invoke the language of international law (e.g.”enforced disappearance,” “widespread or systematic attack”) without adhering to the international evidentiary and procedural disciplines that define and limit their application. This creates a structural imbalance between accusation and defence, and erodes the fairness of proceedings.
38. That it is further submitted that the legislative inconsistency introduced by section 3(3) also undermines the interpretative connerence 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 1973 Act and the ICC framework – an exercise neither anticipated by Parliament nor guided by any clear rule of conflict resolution.
39. That it is noted that this legal uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the Ordinance was promulgated not by a democratically constituted Parliament but by an Interim administration, thereby lacking the deliberative legitimacy necessary for such a fundamental revision of criminal law. The resulting framework is a hybrid of domestic opportunism and selective internationalism, incapable of providing a stable or credible basis for criminal adjudication of the gravity contemplated under the Act.
40. That it is therefore respectfully submitted that the 2024 amendments, being retroactive, substantively inconsistent, procedurally incomplete, and constitutionally unauthorised, 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 are bound to be legally unsafe in the long run.

PROCEDURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS

41. That it is submitted that despite the concern raised by the OHCHR, the Prosecution hurriedly submitted the Formal Charge in the instant case against the accused-petitioner and others which created a serious risk of miscarriage of justice. The OHCHR in its fact-finding report also raised concern in this regard as follows:”A number of interlocutors, including some public interest lawyers and human rights defenders, have expressed concern about these proceedings based on the ICT’s controversial legacy, its legal framework and continuing doubts, notwithstanding the change of government, as to its capacity to conduct genuinely independent, fair and effective proceedings. OHCHR was informed that ICT prosecutors are under pressur to move complex cases forward quickly to respond topublic demands for justice, while lacking the capacity and resources to investigate, gather evidence, protect witnesses and conduct fair prosecutions through to judgment. Some interlocutors advanced that a State referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague would be preferable to avoid perceptions of partiality and ensure independent and impartial justice.”
42. That it is stated that the OHCHR in its fact-finding report categorically recommended to consider referring 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-af0e-12f10c49e691/Toby-Cadman-asks-bd-to-refer-July-massacres-case-to-ICC-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 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 Para 254 of the fact-finding report.
43. That it is further submitted that the present proceedings are before a Tribunal widely perceived as politicised; the selection and conduct of prosecution reflect lack of impartiality. The Chief Prosecutor and members of his team suffer conflicts of interest, having previously represented/supported the 2024 quota protesters, the very constituency now posited as persecuted, vitiating prosecutorial independence. This is analogous to the ICC’s Duterte matter where Prosecutor Karim Khan KC was disqualified due to prior involvement with victims; mutatis mutandis, a like conflict taints the instant prosecution. [Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacitic/icc-judges-disqualify-icc-prosecutor-khan-duterte-case-court-document-shows-2025-10-14/] and as such the formal charge is liable to be rejected.
44. That it is further submitted that the investigation underpinning the Formal Charge lacks independence. The OHCHR Fact-Finding Report (2025) recorded systemic concerns about ICT investigations being conducted by serving/former police implicated in the events. The same report notes pressure to rush complex cases absent capacity for proper investigation, evidence-gathering and witness protection, corroborated by public statements setting arbitrary case-disposal timelines. The OHCHR further suggested, including the Prosecutorial Advisor Mr Toby Cadma Source: https://cao.portal.gov.bd/site/news/ 0dc7da01- c24f-4f24-af0e-12f10c49e691/Toby-Cadiman-asks-bd-to-refer-July-massacres-case-to-ICC-change-name-of-ICT],  to consider referral to the ICC Prosecutor under Article 14. Notwithstanding, the Prosecution hurried the filing signalling mala fides and risking miscarriage of justice.Also, the Chief Prosecutor himself admitted in one of his public speeches how he had to rush the proceedings [Source: https://dailyrepublicbd.com/?p=3358] and as such due to lack of independence and systematic concerns the accused petitioner is liable to be discharged.

SPECIFIC REBUTTALS TO THE CHARGES

Charge No.1, 2 and 3: Murder, attempt to murder, abetment, conspiracy, incitement, failure to prevent and complicity in crimes against humanity

45. That allegation brought against petitioner by the prosecution under sections 3(2)(a), (g) and (h) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 (“the Act”) and attracts liability under sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3).
46. That it is submitted that the allegations under Charge No. 1 are factually untrue, legally untenable, and unsupported by documents and materials submitted by the prosecution. contains no directive, exhortation, or call to violence, and on its face cannot constitute incitement, abetment, or participation in any offence Within section 3(2) of the Act.
47. That it is stated that section 3(2)(a) of the Act criminalises 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.
48. That it is further submitted that section 3(2)(g) punishes” attempt, abetment, conspiracy or incitement to commit” such crimes. The Prosecution has produced no document or material of any actusreus or mensrea demonstrating that the accused intended or attempted to facilitate the crimes alleged.
49. That it is asserted that section 3(2)(h) addresses “complicity in or failure to prevent the commission” of such crimes. The accused-petitioner, not holding any position of authority at the material time, was incapable of directing, supervising, or preventing any law-enforcement action. No evidence shows that he had “effective control” over any armed, disciplined, or , as required for a finding of responsibility. It is noted that he is not a member of any central decision making political organization or platform rather he was only a minister of state and a Member of Parliament.
50. That it is submitted that section 4(3) of the Action superior or command responsibility-applies only to those “commanders, superior officers or leaders” who order, permit, acquiesce, incite or participate in the commission of such crimes, or who fail to prevent or punish their subordinates despite having knowledge or reason to know of the crimes. During the period of the alleged incidents, the accused-petitioner was neither made any comment, nor did  any act for commiting such offence. Hence, no liability under section 4(3) arises in law.
51. That it is submitted that the Prosecution has further alleged that the accused-petitioner acted with the intent “to make the Government’s power absolute, unfettered, and permanent.” This is a specific and serious allegation, yet the Prosecution has produced no documentary, testimonial, or circumstantial materials to substantiate such an objective. On the contrary, the accused-petitioner is widely recognised as a democratic minded.
52. That it is further noted that section 4(2) of the Act provides that a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal if he “orders, solicits, incites or induces the commission of such a crime,” or “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in its commission, or “in any other way contributes” to its commission by a group of persons acting with a common purpose, provided that such contribution shall be intentional and made either” with the aim of furthering the criminal purpose of the group” or “in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime.” The Prosecution has neither alleged nor proved any such act, contribution; or intention on the part of the accused-petitioner. No material submitted by the prosecution demonstrates that he participated in, facilitated, or possessed any mensrea to further a criminal design. Accordingly, the essential element of intention under section 4(2) remains wholly unproven, and the allegation fails both in fact and in law.
53. That it is submitted that none of the witnesses statements establishes any causal nexus regarding the alleged offence or other crimes against humanity. None asserts that the accused’s remarks caused, encouraged, or materially contributed to any act of violence.
54. That it is asserted that the Prosecution’s claim of “incitement” disregards the factual context. By 18 July 2024, the so-called student movement had been hijacked by extremist and opposition elements, as evidenced by attacks on police stations, killings of law-enforcement officers, and the Narsingdi jailbreak. The accused-petitioner’s remarks accurately described that reality Í a legitimate factual assessment, not a call to violence.
55. That it is further submitted that truthful or fact-based commentary, even if politically contentious, cannot constitute incitement. The accused’s references to terrorist elements” were consistent with contemporaneous public admissions by movement leaders – Hasib Al-Islam, Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain and Mahdi Hasan – who themselves acknowledged the presence of armed resistance and extremist infiltration.
56. That it is stated that section 4(1) of the Act provides that any individual who commits or abets a crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal “shall be responsible and liable for punishment.” The Prosecution has failed to demonstrate any individual act, intent, or participation by the accused-petitioner capable of attracting such responsibility.
57. That it is submitted that the Prosecution’s theory of “mischaracterisation equals incitement” is repugnant to both fact and law. To equate a political description of violent unrest with an “order to kill” would criminalise legitimate speech, violating the principles of legality and fair trial protected under the Act and the Constitution.
58. That it is further asserted that, absent any proof of direct communication between the accused and alleged perpetrators, or any contemporaneous act linking the to specific offences, no prima facie nexus exists. The case rests on conjecture rather than evidence, falling short of the standard required by section 9(1) of the Act: and Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure.
59. That it is therefore submitted that Charge No. 1, 2, and 3 is liable to be summarily rejected as disclosing no prima facie case under sections 3(2)(a), (g), (h) or 4(1)-(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act,1973.
60. That it is noted that the accused-petitioner became criminally liable for murder, abetment, and complicity in crimes against humanity under sections 3(2)(a), (g), and (h) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, and that his presence attracted superior responsibility under section 4(1)-(3) of the same Act.
61. That it is submitted that the allegation rests on speculative assumptions rather than legal documents and materials. The Prosecution has not produced any corroborating testimony confirming that any such decision to impose a “shut down” policy was made, discussed, or adopted at the meeting. No document, communication, or witness statement has been disclosed that connects the accused-petitioner to any such directive or policy.
62. That it is asserted 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. 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.
63. That it is further noted 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.
64. 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 these statutory criteria.There is no proof of order, solicitation, inducement, or aid, nor any intentional contribution as envisaged under section 4(2)(d).
65. That it is stated that the claim of “superior responsibility” misconceives the law. Section 4(3) imposes liability on commanders or superiors who “fail to prevent or punish” their subordinates for crimes committed under their effective control. The accused-petitioner had no chain of command, and no operational control. Consequently, section 4(3) cannot apply to him in any manner.
66. That it is submitted that, as in Charge No. 1, the Prosecution’s reliance on conjecture and media snippets rather than primary evidence falls below the threshold of a prima facie case as required by section 9(1) of the Act and Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure.
67. That it is further submitted that the Prosecution has failed to establish actusreus, mensrea, or causation linking the accused-petitioner to any of the alleged crimes and is unsupported by prosecution documents and materials, uncorroborated by purported witnesses, and contradicted by logic and context.
68. That it is therefore submitted that Charge No. 2, premised on conjecture and devoid of evidentiary support, is liable to be summarily rejected as disclosing no prima facie case under sections 3(2)(a), (g),(h) or 4(1) (3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.
69. That it is noted that the Prosecution alleges It is alleged that such acts constitute murder, abetment, and complicity in crimes against humanity under sections 3(2)(a), (g), and (h), read with sections 4(1), (2), and (3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.
70. 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           at https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/ uploads/ 2015/04/ An-Overview-of-the-Use-of-Digital-Evidence-in-International-Criminal-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.
71. That it is submitted that under section 4(2) of the Act, criminal liability attaches only if an individual “orders, solicits, incites or induces” the commission of a crime, or “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in its commission, and that such contribution must be intentional and made “with the aim of furthering the criminal purpose”or “in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime.” The Prosecution has failed to show any such act or intent. There is no legal or factual material that the accused-petitioner ordered, solicited, aided, or abetted any crime, or that he possessed knowledge of, or shared intent with, any alleged perpetrators.
72. That it is asserted that, even on its face, the allegation fails to meet the threshold of section 9(1) of the Act and Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure, which require a prima facie case supported by credible evidence. The Prosecution’s reliance on a mere call log-unsupported by recordings, transcripts, or witnessesÍfalls far short of the evidentiary standard required in international criminal proceedings.
73. That it is submitted that the alleged conduct does not fulfil the actusreus or mensrea required under sections 3(2)(a), (g), or (h). There is no act of commission, order, or contribution to any alleged crime, nor any mental element evidencing intent or knowledge of a criminal plan.
74. That it is therefore submitted that Charges are devoid of evidentiary foundation, fails to disclose any prima facie case under sections 3(2)(a), (g), (h) or 4(1)-(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, and is accordingly liable to be summarily rejected in the interests of justice.
75. That it is submitted that this charge is factually unsubstantiated, procedurally defective, and legally unsustainable. The allegations are based solely on unverified and incomplete digital materials that fail to meet basic evidentiary and procedural safeguards.
76. That it is further noted that the Prosecution has not disclosed how or through what lawful means the alleged call record was obtained, nor has it produced any authentication certificate, chain of custody, or verification process. The Defence has not been informed of whether the material was intercepted, seized, or supplied, or if it was ever forensically examined by an independent expert.
77. That it is submitted that, as discussed in the rebuttal to Charge No. 3, the standards for admissibility of digital evidence particularly regarding authentication, provenance, and preservation-outlined in the UC Berkeley Law Salzburg Working Paper on “An Overview of the Use of Digital Evidence in International Criminal Courts” (2015) apply equally here. Those standards have not been met in this instance.
78. That it is stated that no independent or reliable verification of the alleged recording has been provided. The Prosecution’s own documents contain visible ink blots and smudges in crucial portions of the supposed transcript, casting serious doubt on its accuracy and integrity. The verification, if any, was conducted by individuals not independent of the Prosecution, thereby lacking credibility.
79. That it is asserted that the Defence was denied a fair opportunity to properly assess the materials provided by the prosecution. Although the Tribunal permitted counsel to meet the accused in jail, it did not allow digital devices to be taken into the facility effectively. Consequently, the accused could not or provide his instructions.
80. That it is submitted that the accused-petitioner has therefore been denied meaningful access to the very material forming the basis of this. charge. He has neither heard the alleged audio file nor been provided with a clear, legible transcript, resulting in a fundamental breach of due process and equality of arms.
81. That it is further submitted that even a plain reading of the transcript provided by the Prosecution reveals several exculpatory portions which have been deliberately ignored. The accused-petitioner is clearly heard urging restraint, emphasising that arrested individuals should be released promptly, and cautioning against excessive use of force. His remarks consistently advocate a balanced and proportionate response by law enforcement-firm in maintaining order, yet mindful of the need to prevent unnecessary suffering. The tone and content of the conversation reflect the concern of a responsible statesman seeking to contain escalating violence and loss of life, not to incite or direct it. Far from being incriminating, the transcript is exonerative in substance, and its selective interpretation by the Prosecution is misleading and prejudicial.
82. That it is further asserted that the Prosecution’s claim that the accused “planned killings” through this call lacks any temporal, factual, or causal nexus with any specific criminal act. No materials and documents submitted by the prosecution link the alleged conversation to any of the deaths or incidents cited elsewhere in the charge.
83. That it is submitted that under section 4(2) of the Act, liability arises only when an individual “orders, solicits, incites, induces, aids, or abets” a crime and does so intentionally and for the purpose of furthering a criminal plan or activity. No such intent or participation has been established in this case.
84. That it is stated that the alleged conversation-assuming it occurred-was between two political figures, and the accused-petitioner was one of them who had no command or control over any armed force as contemplated by section 4(3) of the Act. Accordingly, command or superior responsibility cannot arise in law.
85. That it is further noted that the evidentiary and legal deficiencies discussed in relation to Charge No. 1 apply mutatis mutandis to the present charge. In particular, the absence of any causal nexus between the accused’s remarks and the alleged offences, the lack of intent. (mens real or direct participation (actusreus), and the failure of the Prosecution to demonstrate any plan, policy, or conspiracy under section 4(2) are equally relevant here. The present charge is, in essence, a repetition of the earlier unfounded allegation, without any new evidence or material to justify its inclusion.
86. That it is further stated that section 3(2)(a) of the Act criminalises murder when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians. The accused neither committed nor directed any such act. His statements were confined to commentary on public disorder anci contained no language advocating harm or persecution.
87. That it is asserted that section 3(2)(h) concerns complicity or failure to prevent crimes. The accused-petitioner was not in any position of authority political, administrative, or military Í capable of directing or preventing law-enforcement actions. Hence, the necessary element of “effective control” under section 4(3) is wholly absent.
88. That it is stated that section 4(2) requires proof that any contribution to a crime was intentional and made either with the aim of furthering a criminal purpose or in the knowledge that a group intended to commit such crimes. The Prosecution has failed to demonstrate any such intention on the part of the accused; none can be inferred from a brief television interview.
89. That it is further asserted that the Prosecution’s characterisation of the accused’s remarks as “incitement” is a misreading of language and intent. Incitement under international criminal law demands a direct call to imminent unlawful action, which is entirely absent here. The alleged broadcast lacks both the content and context necessary to establish such liability.
90. That it is stated that, in light of the foregoing, no plan, policy, or conspiracy Í as contemplated by section 4(2)Íhas been established. The Prosecution’s claim rests on speculation and political inference rather than evidence admissible under the Act.
91. That it is submitted that truth, in particular historical truth, cannot constitute incitement. Under international jurisprudence, incitement requires a direct call to commit an imminent unlawful act. The accused-petitioner’s remarks lacked both the intent and the direction necessary to meet that standard. They were analytical and factual, not exhortatory.
92. That it is asserted that section 3(2)(a) of the Act criminalize murder as a crime against humanity; section 3(2)(g) criminalises abetment, conspiracy, or incitement; and section 3(2)(h) covers complicity or failure to prevent. The Prosecution has failed to show any actusreus linking the accused to an actual offence, or any mensrea demonstrating intent to commit or facilitate such acts. None of the statutory elements are satisfied.
93. That it is stated that the charge fails to meet the gravity threshold of an international crime. Labelling a political organisation “terrorist” cannot reasonably be compared to genocidal or dehumanising rhetoric seen in Rwanda or Nazi Germany. The accused’s remarks were grounded in well-documented fact, not prejudice or falsehood. To equate them with incitement to mass atrocity trivialises the very notion of crimes against humanity.
94. That it is respectfully prayed that the accused-petitioner is liable to be discharged from Charges in its entirety, the same being baseless in fact, unsupported in law, and inimical to the principles of justice on which this Tribunal was founded.

EVIDENTIARY  DEFECTS  AND LACK  OF  PRIMA FACIE CASE

95. That it is submitted that the admissibility of secretly recorded or intercepted communications in international criminal proceedings is subject to strict scrutiny. Under Article 69(7) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, any evidence obtained in violation of internationally recognised human rights shall be inadmissible if it casts substantial doubt on its reliability or would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings. The same principle applies before this Tribunal pursuant to section 19 of the Act, which requires evidence to be relevant, reliable, and not contrary to the interests of justice.
96. That it is stated that none of the alleged digital materials has been subjected to independent verification. The transcripts bear visible ink stains and smudges affecting readability in crucial portions, and there is no certification as to their accuracy. The individuals who purportedly verified the recordings are themselves members of the prosecution tearn, thereby compromising neutrality. As such, the defence invokes audialterampartem and in dubio pro reo, asserting that the accused was denied the opportunity to contest the recordings, which were allegedly obtained without judicial authorization or the consent of the parties involved, thereby violating the right to privacy under Article 17 of the ICCPR and as such, the accused – petitioner may kindly be discharged.
97. That it is submitted that the accused-petitioner has been denied meaningful access to the alleged evidence. Though the Tribunal allowed the Defence to meet the accused in custody, it did not permit digital devices to be taken into the facility, preventing counsel from playing the audio files to the accused. A subsequent application for review seeking limited permission for such access was rejected, thereby violating the accused’s right to prepare an effective defence and to know the evidence against him.
98. That it is stated that section 4(2) of the Act further provides that any contribution to a crime must be intentional, made either with the aim of furthering the criminal purpose of a group or in the knowledge of the group’s intention to commit the crime. No such intention or knowledge has been alleged, let alone proved, against the accused. On the cóntrary, the available evidence including the call transcripts-shows his consistent advocacy of moderation and restraint.
99. 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 criminalresponsibility.
100. That it is submitted that one member of the OHCHR fact-finding tearn 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.
101. 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.
102. That it is most respectfully submitted that in the “Fact Finding Report” on the “Human Rights Violations and Abuses related to the Protests of July and August 2024 in Bangladesh”, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) categorically raised serious concern about the investigation conducted by the investigation agency of the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh. In this regard, the said report stated:”Public trust in the Police to conduct the effective investigations needed to sustain successful prosecutions remains low. As Bangladesh lacks an effective and independent mechanism to investigate criminal complaints involving police and other security forces, there is widespread concern that Police investigators will not duly investigate cases concerning theigown current or former colleagues. Even the ICT’s investigation team reportedly relies entirely on serving or former police officers.” (Para 258)
103. 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.
104. That it is further submitted that materials not intended as prosecution evidence (including high-level situation reports) have been selectively invoked; indeed, even international reporting warned against treating such compilations as trial evidence while simultaneously criticising the ICT investigation’s lack of independence.
105. That it is further noted that section 3(2) of the Act defines crimes within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, but only when committed “as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” The prosecution has failed to establish that any such attack occurred pursuant to a policy, plan, or direction in which the accused participated. Isolated acts of violence by law enforcement or third parties, even if proved, cannot satisfy this threshold.
106. That it is stated that the cumulative defects unreliable witness statements, unverified digital evidence, suppression of exculpatory material, misuse of the OHCHR report, and the absence of command authority or intent-render the prosecution’s case wholly unreliable. Even taking the evidence at its highest, it fails to establish any actusreus, mensrea, or causal nexus linking the accused to the alleged crimes under sections 3(2) or 4 of the Act.
107. 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.

ALLEGED THE INCITEMENT THEORY – NO ACTUS REUS, NO MENS REA, NO KNOWLEDGE AND NO CAUSATION

108. That it is submitted that the truth and factual basis of the accused-petitioner’s characterization of the protests is borne out by incontrovertible material in the public domain. The “quota reform movement,” though starting as a student protest, was hijacked by militant and opposition elements and swiftly descended into organised violence, as evidenced by the Narsingdi Jail Break (where 826 inmates escaped), arson attacks on police stations and government offices, the killing of at least thirteen police officers at Enayetpur, and the death of Mir Mahfuzur Rahman Mugdho after he himself warned of Jamaat-Shibir and Chhatra Dal infiltration. The public admissions of key figures-such as Shadik Kayem, Hasib Al-Islam, and Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain- explicitly acknowledge that the movement’s leadership was prepared for armed resistance and that violence, including the killing of police officers and destruction of public property, was a deliberate strategy to bring down the government. These are not allegations but recorded statements of fact, supported by reports and broadcasts contemporaneous with the events themselves.
109. That it is stated that the accused-petitioner’s alleged statements were descriptive assessments of unfolding facts, not directives to commit unlawful acts. There was no call to violence, no exhortation to commit any enumerated crime under section 3(2), and no instruction to target civilians or a protected group.
110. That it is also noted the Prosecution failed to identify any specific criminal act that was subsequently carried out as a result of any statement by the accused. No chain of causation exists, nor is it pleaded by the Prosecution or evidenced linking any words of the accused to any particular offence, perpetrator, place, date or victim. Thus no action can be brought against the accused-petitioner which warrants charge as proposed by the learned Prosecution.

ONE-SIDED INVESTIGATION FOLLOWED BY BLANKET INDEMNITY

111. That it is respectfully submitted that the Prosecution’s investigation is fundamentally flawed, suffering from political bias and selectivity, having been conducted with the singular aim of targeting the Petitioner while intentionally disregarding of its statutory duty by consciously failing to investigate or acknowledge credible, publicly documented evidence of grave crimes committed by elements aligned with the protest movement, including confessions from key organisers, the Narsingdi Jail Break, police killings, which would have established that the violence was the product of a pre-planned armed conspiracy, and not of any incitement by the Petitioner. This deficiency is compounded by the subsequent actions of the Interim Government, which issued a blanket indemnity shielding the actual perpetrators from prosecution, thereby establishing a pattern of selective justice that violates the principle of equality before the law and compromises the bona fides and independence of the entire process, rendering the prosecution legally unsustainable before this Honourable Tribunal, and as such, the formal charge is liable to be rejected.
112. That it is submitted that the Formal Charge submitted by the Prosecution does not disclose any prima-facie case against the accused-petitioner under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, and as such, the accused-petitioner may kindly be discharged from the instant case.

Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal would graciously be pleased to (i) discharge the accused-petitioner from the instant case as there is no sufficient ground to frame charge as well as for the ends of justice, (ii) and further be pleased to take judicial notice of the facts as stated in paragraph Nos. 5-28. being the facts of common knowledge as per the provision of Section 19(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 and/or pass such other order or orders as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.