Ghulam Azam Judgement, Part 7: Sentence

This is the seventh and final part of the Ghulam Azam judgement, dealing with the issue of sentence

To see part one - dealing with introductory issues
To see part two - dealing with charges relating to conspiracy and planning
To see part three - dealing with charge relating to incitement

To see part four - dealing with charge relating to complicity

To see part five - dealing with charges relating to murder
To see part six - dealing with command control and superior responsibility 

XXV. Verdict on conviction
387. Having considered all evidence and materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned lawyers of both the parties, we unanimously hold that the prosecution has successfully proved all the five broad charges brought aganist accused professor Ghulam Azam beyond reasonable doubt.

Charge Nos. 1 and 2: The charge No. 1 Conspiracy contains 06 counts while charge No.2 Planning contains 03 counts. The accused is found GUILTY to the offences of conspiracy and planning for invloving himself in the commission of 239 crimes as specified in section 3(2) read with 4(2) of ICT Act of 1973 and he be convicted and sentenced under section 20(2) of the said Act.

Charge No.3 Incitement contains 28 counts. The accused is found GUILTY to the offence of incitement for involving himself in the commission of crimes as specified in section 3(2) read with 4(2) of the ICT Act of 1973 and he be convicted and sentenced under section 20(2) of the said Act.

Charge No.4 Complicity contains 23 counts. The accused is found GUILTY to the offence of complicity for involving himself in the commission of crimes as specified in section 3(2) read with section 4(2) of the ICT Act of 1973 and he be convicted and sentenced under section 20(2) of the said Act.

Charge No.5 The accused is found GUILTY to the offences of murder and torture which fall within the purview of crimes aganist humanity as specified in section 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1) of the ICT Act of 1973 and he be convicted and sentenced under section 20(2) of the said Act.

XXVI. Verdict on Sentence
388. From the foregoing discussions and documentary evidence disclosed above, it is well-proved that accused Ghulam Azam as a defacto superior in the name of preserving Pakistan played the role of an architect in forming Peace Committee, Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-shams by the members of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing Islami Chhatra Sangha who in fact 240 acted in support of Pakistan occupation forces in carrying out atrocities during nine months’ War of Liberation in 1971. It is also proved that Pakistan occupation forces in collaboration with the said para-Militia Bahinis launched attacks upon unarmed civilians and killed millions of Bangalees, but the accused intentionally did not take any measure to prevent his subordinates from committing those crimes as specified in section- 3(2) of the Act.

389. Mr. Syed Haider Ali, the learned Prosecutor lastly submits that the prosecution has successfully proved that accused Ghulam Azam was the master mind of all atrocities who knowingly by exercising his superior status committed the barbaric offences through his subordinates during the War of Liberation and as such the highest punishment as provided under law should be inflicted upon him.

390. We have already found that accused Ghulam Azam is guilty to the offences relating to conspiracy, planning, incitement, complicity and murder of Seru Miah and 3 others mentioned in charge Nos. 1 to 5 in the commission of those crimes against humanity and genocide as specified in section 3(2) of the Act. Now a pertinent question is before us to decide what punishment can be awarded to the accused which shall meet the ends of justice reflecting the requirement of law as well as aspiration of the victims’ families of the country.

391. In Blaskic case, the Tribunal observed that if the elements of military commanders or civil superiors are fulfilled, the superiors are liable to be awarded heavier sentences even than that of the actual perpetrators. In the context of trial relating to international crimes, we are of the opinion that the plea of old age or belated prosecution does not diminish the guilt of the accused.

392. Having considered the attending facts, legal position and the gravity and magnitude of the offences committed by the accused, we unanimously hold that he deserves the highest punishment i.e. capital punishment as provided under section 20(2) of the ICT Act of 1973. But in the same breath, we cannot overlook the mitigating circumstances which have come up before us for its due consideration.

393. Undisputedly, accused Ghulam Azam is now aged 91 years. It is evident on record that the accused was taken into custody on 11 January 2012 by the order of this Tribunal but the Prison authority sent him to the Prison cell of Bangobandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) Hospital on the same date for his proper treatment. Since then the accused has been kept in the said prison cell for providing him constant treatment to the complications due to his old age.

394. Facts remain that the accused is now an extremely old man of 91 years coupled with his long ailment. These two aforesaid factors are considered by this Tribunal as an extenuating circumstances for taking lenient view in the matter of awarding punishment to the accused. Having regards to the above facts and circumstances, we are of agreed view that the ends of justice would be met if mitigating sentence is inflicted upon the accused. Hence it is ORDERED, that accused Professor Ghulam Azam, son of late Maulana Ghulam Kabir of village- Birgaon, Police Station- Nabinagar, Dist. Brahmanbaria, at present 119/2 Kazi Office Lane, Mogbazar Police Station-Ramna, Dist. Dhaka, being a defacto superior is held guilty to the offences mentioned in all charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the Commission of crimes as specified in section 3(2) read with section 4(1), 4(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973. The accused is awarded punishment showing period 242 of imprisonment for each charge proportionate to the gravity of offences as mentioned below:- Charge Nos-1 and 2. The accused is held guilty to the offences of conspiracy (charge No. 1) and planning (charge No. 2) together in the commission of crimes as specified in section 3(2) read with section 4(2) of the ICT Act of 1973 and for the afore-said two offences, he is convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten years each of the offences totalling 20 years under section 20(2) of the said Act. Charge No.3 The accused is held guilty to the offence of incitement in the commission of crimes as specified in section 3(2) read with section 4(2) of the ICT Act of 1973 and he is convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 20 years under section 20(2) of the said Act. Charge No.4 The accused is held guilty to the offence of complicity in the commission of crimes as specified in section 3(2) read with section 4(2) of the ICT Act of 1973 and he is convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 20 years under section 20(2) of the said Act. Charge No.5 The accused is held guilty to the offence of murdering Seru Miah and 3 others in the commission of crimes against humanity as specified in section 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1) of the ICT Act of 1973 and he is convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 30 years under section 20(2) of the said Act. The total period of sentences of five charges is 90 years. 243 The period of aforesaid sentences awarded to the accused shall run consecutively or till his death. Let a certified copy of the judgment be furnished to the convict and the prosecution free of cost at once. Let another copy of the judgment be sent to the District Magistrate, Dhaka for information and necessary action. Let the convict accused be sent to the Central Jail, Dhaka for under going above-mentioned sentences along with a conviction warrant accordingly. Before parting with the case, we express our gratitude to the learned lawyers of both the parties for their sincere co-operation and assistance to us.