- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 3,876
- Likes
- 2,073
Don't worry. We have legitimacy where it counts.
[🇧🇩] Extradition of Hasina, Awami Leaders/Beneficiaries and Related News.
- Thread starter Saif
- Start date
Bangladesh Defense
Don't worry. We have legitimacy where it counts.
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 18,067
- Likes
- 8,549
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
Playing too much video games makes you r*tard, you know.
Vsdoc
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2024
- Messages
- 7,010
- Likes
- 5,419
Thankfully for you it does not matter either way.
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 18,067
- Likes
- 8,549
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
Aftermath of Sheikh Hasina’s extradition request
THE Bangladesh government lodging a formal request to extradite its former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, through a diplomatic note verbale dated December 23, 2024, is a welcome step...
www.newagebd.net
Aftermath of Sheikh Hasina’s extradition request
by Quazi Omar Foysal 27 December, 2024, 00:00
New Age/Mehedi Haque
THE Bangladesh government lodging a formal request to extradite its former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, through a diplomatic note verbale dated December 23, 2024, is a welcome step towards addressing the allegations of human rights violations and international crimes during the fifteen-year-long tenure of the previous government. The extradition request is based on the 2013 Bangladesh-India Extradition Treaty (amended in 2016). This treaty was concluded during Hasina’s regime and binds both states under international law. As of now, India’s response to the note verbale has been limited to an acknowledgement of receipt. Bangladesh has subsequently revealed that it will remind India of the request but has not specified a timeline.
This decision by the government marks a clear departure from its earlier stance. On October 30, 2024, it had stated that it would request Sheikh Hasina’s extradition from India only after a successful trial outcome. This author has previously argued (New Age, November 9, 2024) that such an approach could potentially undermine the prospect of the extradition process itself. However, as the chief prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal-Bangladesh, ICT-BD, has rightly pointed out, the successful extradition of Hasina could pave the way for a more effective and fair trial.
At this juncture, Bangladesh can validly claim that the extradition request meets the conditions stipulated in the 2013 Bangladesh-India Extradition Treaty and does not fall under grounds for rejection. However, the success of the deal depends on whether India accepts Bangladesh’s interpretation of the treaty. Historically, any attempts to extradite high-ranking political figures from allied nations have often produced more heat than light. The Hasina extradition attempt cannot be viewed in isolation, especially considering that she is widely recognised as one of India’s closest allies in South Asia. This complicates the matter further, given the political dynamics at play.
One of the key drawbacks of the 2013 Extradition Treaty is the absence of a compulsory dispute resolution mechanism. Bangladesh must, therefore, pursue the matter through diplomatic channels. While the Indian government has not made any official comments, some political commentators have raised concerns about the political nature of the crime, the fairness of trials and the potential use of the death penalty. In that context, the government should address these issues robustly alongside its diplomatic efforts.
It is often criticised that the call for the trial of Hasina is political in nature. In fact, political crimes are exempted from the purview of the 2013 Extradition Treaty. While the publicly available information about Bangladesh’s note verbale does not mention the forum of the trial, it can be inferred that it involved, as indicated by the ICT-BD chief prosecutor, the trials of international crimes. There is a global consensus that political crimes do not cover international crimes, and this does not attract the definition of political crimes provided in the 2013 Extradition Treaty.
The decision to hold trials for international crimes is viewed by some as politically motivated, though such trials themselves are not inherently political. The allegations of international crimes and human rights violations committed under Hasina’s regime are widely accepted. This view is supported by the OHCHR Preliminary Analysis on Bangladesh (August 16, 2024) and is likely to be reinforced by its upcoming final report. Additionally, the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances’ recent findings further substantiate these allegations. Thus, dismissing these accusations as political crimes would be equivalent to an indirect denial of those horrendous crimes inflicted on Bangladeshis during the last 15 years, including the July massacre.
There are some concerns regarding the ICT-BD’s adherence to fair trial standards. The ICT-BD has attracted widespread criticisms, mostly on its fair trial standards and the use of the death penalty, during its functioning in the Awami League era. The current interim government, aware of these criticisms, has amended the ICT-BD Act to replace its Nuremberg-era provisions with Rome Statute-era provisions. These amendments address rules of evidence, the rights of the defence and the rights of victims.
It is interesting to note that when Bangladesh moved to prosecute ICT-BD convicts despite the above-mentioned criticisms, India continued to strengthen its relations with the Awami League government. This pattern persisted even after the Awami League’s controversial re-election in a largely voteless 2014 general election.
In the current context, it is expected that the government should take adequate steps to ensure the proper implementation of these provisions, which appear to offer greater protections to both the accused and victims than the general criminal justice system of Bangladesh. The successful implementation of the provisions of the amended ICT-BD, alongside addressing other alleged irregularities in Bangladesh’s justice system, will provide a strong counter-justification for India’s hesitance to extradite Hasina.
Furthermore, there remain persistent concerns over the death penalty in the ICT-BD Act. In many extradition cases, the death penalty has been successfully cited as a bar to extradition, largely based on the principle of non-refoulement. Nevertheless, since both Bangladesh and India retain the death penalty, it is difficult to see why India would raise objections to its application in this case. While abolitionists often argue against the death penalty in transitional justice contexts, Bangladesh is not legally obligated to adopt this stance. On a related note, the issue of death penalty abolition may resurface, and it would be prudent for the current government to reconsider this matter.
On the other hand, it is equally implausible to imagine India amending its penal provisions to extradite an accused of terrorism from other death penalty-retaining states, including Bangladesh. This logic should also apply to cases involving serious international crimes supported by credible evidence in the present case.
Pending the anticipated delay by the Indian government, Bangladesh may simultaneously explore alternative forums for Hasina’s trials to facilitate an extradition agreement with India. This approach is supported by several precedents. For instance, former Liberian president Charles Taylor was prosecuted by the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone in The Hague, Netherlands, rather than in Freetown, to ensure transparency and fair trial standards. Similarly, the deposed Chadian dictator Hissène Habré was tried by the African Extraordinary Chamber, a tribunal established jointly by the African Union and Senegal on the same grounds.
If India continues to delay the extradition deal, Bangladesh could propose an alternative judicial arrangement, potentially in collaboration with the UN or SAARC. International practice demonstrates that holding trials in multiple forums is feasible. In this case, the majority of the accused could be tried at the ICT-BD, while Sheikh Hasina would be tried at a specialised tribunal. In such a scenario, Bangladesh should prioritise the realisation of justice, rather than the forum in which it is pursued.
As events unfold, Bangladesh must remain open to further negotiations with India. Bangladesh should consider offering ‘diplomatic assurances’ to India, including guarantees to ensure Hasina’s fair trial rights and adherence to relevant human rights standards, with provisions for monitoring by India. This approach may become increasingly crucial in the days to come.
The Hasina extradition request serves as a critical test of India’s commitment to mending its recently strained bilateral relationship with Bangladesh, following the toppling of the Hasina government on August 5. In this context, India should approach the issue in good faith, interpreting the 2013 Extradition Treaty legally rather than politically. It remains to be seen whether the extradition request will lead to another irresolvable dispute between Bangladesh and India or whether it will signify a new phase of cooperation in their bilateral relations.
Quazi Omar Foysal is an international law expert, currently serving as a lecturer at American International University-Bangladesh and practising as an advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
by Quazi Omar Foysal 27 December, 2024, 00:00
New Age/Mehedi Haque
THE Bangladesh government lodging a formal request to extradite its former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, through a diplomatic note verbale dated December 23, 2024, is a welcome step towards addressing the allegations of human rights violations and international crimes during the fifteen-year-long tenure of the previous government. The extradition request is based on the 2013 Bangladesh-India Extradition Treaty (amended in 2016). This treaty was concluded during Hasina’s regime and binds both states under international law. As of now, India’s response to the note verbale has been limited to an acknowledgement of receipt. Bangladesh has subsequently revealed that it will remind India of the request but has not specified a timeline.
This decision by the government marks a clear departure from its earlier stance. On October 30, 2024, it had stated that it would request Sheikh Hasina’s extradition from India only after a successful trial outcome. This author has previously argued (New Age, November 9, 2024) that such an approach could potentially undermine the prospect of the extradition process itself. However, as the chief prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal-Bangladesh, ICT-BD, has rightly pointed out, the successful extradition of Hasina could pave the way for a more effective and fair trial.
At this juncture, Bangladesh can validly claim that the extradition request meets the conditions stipulated in the 2013 Bangladesh-India Extradition Treaty and does not fall under grounds for rejection. However, the success of the deal depends on whether India accepts Bangladesh’s interpretation of the treaty. Historically, any attempts to extradite high-ranking political figures from allied nations have often produced more heat than light. The Hasina extradition attempt cannot be viewed in isolation, especially considering that she is widely recognised as one of India’s closest allies in South Asia. This complicates the matter further, given the political dynamics at play.
One of the key drawbacks of the 2013 Extradition Treaty is the absence of a compulsory dispute resolution mechanism. Bangladesh must, therefore, pursue the matter through diplomatic channels. While the Indian government has not made any official comments, some political commentators have raised concerns about the political nature of the crime, the fairness of trials and the potential use of the death penalty. In that context, the government should address these issues robustly alongside its diplomatic efforts.
It is often criticised that the call for the trial of Hasina is political in nature. In fact, political crimes are exempted from the purview of the 2013 Extradition Treaty. While the publicly available information about Bangladesh’s note verbale does not mention the forum of the trial, it can be inferred that it involved, as indicated by the ICT-BD chief prosecutor, the trials of international crimes. There is a global consensus that political crimes do not cover international crimes, and this does not attract the definition of political crimes provided in the 2013 Extradition Treaty.
The decision to hold trials for international crimes is viewed by some as politically motivated, though such trials themselves are not inherently political. The allegations of international crimes and human rights violations committed under Hasina’s regime are widely accepted. This view is supported by the OHCHR Preliminary Analysis on Bangladesh (August 16, 2024) and is likely to be reinforced by its upcoming final report. Additionally, the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances’ recent findings further substantiate these allegations. Thus, dismissing these accusations as political crimes would be equivalent to an indirect denial of those horrendous crimes inflicted on Bangladeshis during the last 15 years, including the July massacre.
There are some concerns regarding the ICT-BD’s adherence to fair trial standards. The ICT-BD has attracted widespread criticisms, mostly on its fair trial standards and the use of the death penalty, during its functioning in the Awami League era. The current interim government, aware of these criticisms, has amended the ICT-BD Act to replace its Nuremberg-era provisions with Rome Statute-era provisions. These amendments address rules of evidence, the rights of the defence and the rights of victims.
It is interesting to note that when Bangladesh moved to prosecute ICT-BD convicts despite the above-mentioned criticisms, India continued to strengthen its relations with the Awami League government. This pattern persisted even after the Awami League’s controversial re-election in a largely voteless 2014 general election.
In the current context, it is expected that the government should take adequate steps to ensure the proper implementation of these provisions, which appear to offer greater protections to both the accused and victims than the general criminal justice system of Bangladesh. The successful implementation of the provisions of the amended ICT-BD, alongside addressing other alleged irregularities in Bangladesh’s justice system, will provide a strong counter-justification for India’s hesitance to extradite Hasina.
Furthermore, there remain persistent concerns over the death penalty in the ICT-BD Act. In many extradition cases, the death penalty has been successfully cited as a bar to extradition, largely based on the principle of non-refoulement. Nevertheless, since both Bangladesh and India retain the death penalty, it is difficult to see why India would raise objections to its application in this case. While abolitionists often argue against the death penalty in transitional justice contexts, Bangladesh is not legally obligated to adopt this stance. On a related note, the issue of death penalty abolition may resurface, and it would be prudent for the current government to reconsider this matter.
On the other hand, it is equally implausible to imagine India amending its penal provisions to extradite an accused of terrorism from other death penalty-retaining states, including Bangladesh. This logic should also apply to cases involving serious international crimes supported by credible evidence in the present case.
Pending the anticipated delay by the Indian government, Bangladesh may simultaneously explore alternative forums for Hasina’s trials to facilitate an extradition agreement with India. This approach is supported by several precedents. For instance, former Liberian president Charles Taylor was prosecuted by the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone in The Hague, Netherlands, rather than in Freetown, to ensure transparency and fair trial standards. Similarly, the deposed Chadian dictator Hissène Habré was tried by the African Extraordinary Chamber, a tribunal established jointly by the African Union and Senegal on the same grounds.
If India continues to delay the extradition deal, Bangladesh could propose an alternative judicial arrangement, potentially in collaboration with the UN or SAARC. International practice demonstrates that holding trials in multiple forums is feasible. In this case, the majority of the accused could be tried at the ICT-BD, while Sheikh Hasina would be tried at a specialised tribunal. In such a scenario, Bangladesh should prioritise the realisation of justice, rather than the forum in which it is pursued.
As events unfold, Bangladesh must remain open to further negotiations with India. Bangladesh should consider offering ‘diplomatic assurances’ to India, including guarantees to ensure Hasina’s fair trial rights and adherence to relevant human rights standards, with provisions for monitoring by India. This approach may become increasingly crucial in the days to come.
The Hasina extradition request serves as a critical test of India’s commitment to mending its recently strained bilateral relationship with Bangladesh, following the toppling of the Hasina government on August 5. In this context, India should approach the issue in good faith, interpreting the 2013 Extradition Treaty legally rather than politically. It remains to be seen whether the extradition request will lead to another irresolvable dispute between Bangladesh and India or whether it will signify a new phase of cooperation in their bilateral relations.
Quazi Omar Foysal is an international law expert, currently serving as a lecturer at American International University-Bangladesh and practising as an advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 18,067
- Likes
- 8,549
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
India unlikely to respond to call on Hasina extradition: Hindustan Times
The report noted that key procedural requirements have not been fulfilled by Dhaka to advance such a request.
India unlikely to respond to call on Hasina extradition: Hindustan Times
File photo
India is unlikely to act on Bangladesh's request to extradite former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the Hindustan Times reported today, citing sources familiar with the situation. The report noted that key procedural requirements have not been fulfilled by Dhaka to advance such a request.
The extradition plea was submitted as a note verbale—an informal diplomatic communication—by the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi to India's Ministry of External Affairs on December 23. This development occurred against the backdrop of heightened tensions in bilateral relations following the establishment of Bangladesh's interim government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.
A note verbale, considered one of the most basic forms of diplomatic communication, is generally not used for sensitive matters like extradition requests, Hindustan Times reported, quoting sources on condition of anonymity.
Hasina, 77, has been residing in India since leaving Bangladesh amidst nationwide protests led by student groups. She fled Dhaka on August 5. Yunus and other interim government leaders have referred to her presence in India and her statements while in exile as contributing to tensions in India-Bangladesh relations.
Some observers in New Delhi view the extradition request as largely symbolic—a measure by Bangladesh's interim government to address domestic political pressures, particularly from student groups pushing for Hasina's return, the Hindustan Times reported, citing sources.
"Extradition is not some simple process and both parties making and receiving such a request have certain obligations. The person who is the subject of an extradition request also has options. Those options are yet to be exercised," the Hindustan Times quoted one source as saying.
The person sought for extradition retains the right to challenge the request in court, a step that has not yet been pursued.
Moreover, the India-Bangladesh extradition treaty of 2013 includes clauses under which an extradition request can be denied. Article 6, or the "Political Offence Exception" allows refusal if the offense is deemed political in nature, the newspaper stated.
Article 8, which outlines additional grounds for rejecting extradition, specifies that an individual cannot be extradited if the accusation lacks good faith or fails to serve the interests of justice, the report added.
The Hindustan Times also noted that during Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri's visit to Dhaka last month, discussions focused on charting a constructive path forward in bilateral relations.
An official statement released after Misri's day-long visit on December 9 emphasised India's "willingness to build a positive and constructive relationship" with Bangladesh, built on mutual trust and respect for each other's concerns.
While reiterating India's support for a democratic, stable, and inclusive Bangladesh, Misri stressed that bilateral cooperation in areas like connectivity, trade, and energy is "geared towards the benefit of the people of Bangladesh".
Although India has ongoing concerns about the treatment of Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh, there are indications that Dhaka's leadership may be adopting a more conciliatory stance towards New Delhi, reports Hindustan Times.
The Hindustan Times also observed that neither Hasina's presence in India nor Bangladesh's extradition request was mentioned in a detailed interview with Bangladesh Army Chief Gen Waker-Uz-Zaman published by Prothom Alo on Wednesday.
Zaman acknowledged Bangladesh's dependence on India as an "important neighbour" and will not do anything that goes against New Delhi's strategic interests. India has an interest in Bangladesh's stability and the two sides share a give-and-take relationship that "must be based on fairness", said The Hindustan Times.
Bangladesh's Foreign Affairs Adviser Touhid Hossain also highlighted the importance of balancing the extradition request with other pressing issues on Wednesday.
The reciprocal release of each country's fishermen on January 5 is seen as a step towards improving India-Bangladesh relations, the report concluded.
File photo
India is unlikely to act on Bangladesh's request to extradite former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the Hindustan Times reported today, citing sources familiar with the situation. The report noted that key procedural requirements have not been fulfilled by Dhaka to advance such a request.
The extradition plea was submitted as a note verbale—an informal diplomatic communication—by the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi to India's Ministry of External Affairs on December 23. This development occurred against the backdrop of heightened tensions in bilateral relations following the establishment of Bangladesh's interim government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.
A note verbale, considered one of the most basic forms of diplomatic communication, is generally not used for sensitive matters like extradition requests, Hindustan Times reported, quoting sources on condition of anonymity.
Hasina, 77, has been residing in India since leaving Bangladesh amidst nationwide protests led by student groups. She fled Dhaka on August 5. Yunus and other interim government leaders have referred to her presence in India and her statements while in exile as contributing to tensions in India-Bangladesh relations.
Some observers in New Delhi view the extradition request as largely symbolic—a measure by Bangladesh's interim government to address domestic political pressures, particularly from student groups pushing for Hasina's return, the Hindustan Times reported, citing sources.
"Extradition is not some simple process and both parties making and receiving such a request have certain obligations. The person who is the subject of an extradition request also has options. Those options are yet to be exercised," the Hindustan Times quoted one source as saying.
The person sought for extradition retains the right to challenge the request in court, a step that has not yet been pursued.
Moreover, the India-Bangladesh extradition treaty of 2013 includes clauses under which an extradition request can be denied. Article 6, or the "Political Offence Exception" allows refusal if the offense is deemed political in nature, the newspaper stated.
Article 8, which outlines additional grounds for rejecting extradition, specifies that an individual cannot be extradited if the accusation lacks good faith or fails to serve the interests of justice, the report added.
The Hindustan Times also noted that during Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri's visit to Dhaka last month, discussions focused on charting a constructive path forward in bilateral relations.
An official statement released after Misri's day-long visit on December 9 emphasised India's "willingness to build a positive and constructive relationship" with Bangladesh, built on mutual trust and respect for each other's concerns.
While reiterating India's support for a democratic, stable, and inclusive Bangladesh, Misri stressed that bilateral cooperation in areas like connectivity, trade, and energy is "geared towards the benefit of the people of Bangladesh".
Although India has ongoing concerns about the treatment of Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh, there are indications that Dhaka's leadership may be adopting a more conciliatory stance towards New Delhi, reports Hindustan Times.
The Hindustan Times also observed that neither Hasina's presence in India nor Bangladesh's extradition request was mentioned in a detailed interview with Bangladesh Army Chief Gen Waker-Uz-Zaman published by Prothom Alo on Wednesday.
Zaman acknowledged Bangladesh's dependence on India as an "important neighbour" and will not do anything that goes against New Delhi's strategic interests. India has an interest in Bangladesh's stability and the two sides share a give-and-take relationship that "must be based on fairness", said The Hindustan Times.
Bangladesh's Foreign Affairs Adviser Touhid Hossain also highlighted the importance of balancing the extradition request with other pressing issues on Wednesday.
The reciprocal release of each country's fishermen on January 5 is seen as a step towards improving India-Bangladesh relations, the report concluded.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 3,876
- Likes
- 2,073
