Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Navo
Jadukor bhai, I agree with Zafar Sobhan when he says that the presumption of innocence was founded as a legal concept on the basis that the defendant is helpless/powerless. It is better to let a 100 guilty men go free rather than see an innocent man hang, etc. However, the equation changes when the defendant is very powerful and even when not in power, wields considerable influence over an organized segment of the population: in over 20 years of power they have plenty of opportunities to make evidence disappear, intimidate witnesses, confuse public memory and so on.
Very difficult to have high standard trials in such circumstances.
I also feel a bit peeved when the whole world talks about delivering justice and international standards, when they did diddly squat to help/prod Bangladesh towards holding such trials before 2009. They were international crimes; crimes against humanity for crying out loud!
|
Navo, can you talk about the weakness of the tribunal? Are you aware of any legal weakness of the case as well? I am just curious, and I am hoping that you have much more info about this than an average person like myself.
BTW, if you can't expect high standard in the legal proceedings, then where should you? Next time when someone you know is prosecuted with OUT using high standards, I wonder how you will try to rationalize it. It is important to separate politics from intellectual questions.