The New Nation - Internet Edition

2008 (XVI) BLT (AD) 311

Appellate Division

[Criminal]

Present:

Mr. Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim

Mr. Justice Md. Joynul Abedin

Mr. Justice Md. Hassan Ameen

Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal

No. 396 of 2007

Mst. Parvin Rahman t. Petitioner.

Versus

Moniruzzaman and others:' t Respondents

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. N. Goswami, Advocate instructed by Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-an-Record.

For Respondent No,.1: Mr. Bivash Chandra Biswas, Advocate-on-Record.

For Respondent No.2: None represented.

Date of Hearing: The 5th day of June, 2008. Result: Dismissed

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section-526

It appears from the record that allegation is that the accused opposite parties are very powerful men in the locality and on 14.02.2006 the accused person attacked the complainants' witnesses in order to kill them and they also threatened that they would kill her when she appears before the Court. If the allegation is true the learned Advocate for the complainant petitioner may take steps in the concerned Tribunal for their safety in the Court and other places but on that ground it is not proper to transfer the case if the cases is transferred it will cause hardship to the accused opposite parties to conduct the case. [Para-5]

Judgment

Mr. Mohammad Fazlul Karim, J:- Mst. Parvin Rahman seeks Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2007 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1188l of 2007 whereby an application under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transferring the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Case No.282 of 2003 under Section 9(4) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Sirajgonj to the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Dhaka or any other competent Court filed by the appellant summarily rejected.

2. The complainant on 18.02.2003 lodged a complaint petition before the Court of First Class Magistrate and cognisance 'Ka'. Anchal at Sirajgonj. The cognisance Court sent it to the Police Station at Belkuchi and also ordered to take it as F.I.R. The complainant stated in her complaint petition as

Ò`iLv¯Íc‡¶ `iLv¯ÍKvixi webxZ wb‡e`b GB †h, bvwgK mKj weev`x `vi“b `y`©všÍ `vsMvevR, mš¿vmx Ges Amr cÖK…wZi †jvKRb e‡U| bvwgK 1bs weev`x GKRb Lvivc Pwi‡Îi †jvK| Avgvi ¯^vgx XvKv‡Z Gqvi jvB‡Ý PvKzix K‡i| Avwg cyÎ-Kb¨v‡`i jBqv Avgiv mevB XvKvq _vwK| wmivRMÄ †Rjvi †ejKzwP _vbvi eqivevox MÖv‡g Avgvi ¯^vgxi evox| gv‡S g‡a¨ Avgiv MÖv‡g Avwm| †mB wnmv‡e 1bs weev`xi mwnZ Avgvi Ges Avgvi Kb¨vi 1bs ¯^v¶xi cwiPq nq| †mB †nZz 1 bs weev`x gv‡S g‡a¨ Avgvi evmvq hvBZ Ges 1 bs ¯^v¶x‡K dzmjvBZ| 1g NUbvi mgq bvwgK 1 bs weev`x Avgvi evmvq hvBqv 1 bs ¯^v¶x‡K dzmjvBqv 1 bs ¯^v¶x‡K MÖv‡gi evox‡Z K_v ewjqv jvBqv Av‡m| Avmvi mgq 1bs ¯^v¶xi ms‡M 7 fwi †mvbvi Mnbv Ges 5,000.00 nvRvi UvKv jBqv Av‡m| mvivw`b GLv‡b †mLv‡b NyivBqv ivwÎ Abygvb 8:00 NwUKvi mgq 1bs weev`xi evox‡Z jBqv Avwmqv `w¶Y `yqvix N‡ii g‡a¨ AvUK Kwiqv ivwLqv cieZ©x‡Z 2/3/4/5bs weev`x 1bs weev`xi mwnZ 1bs ¯^v¶xi weevn covB‡Z Pvwn‡j 1bs ¯^v¶x Zvnv‡Z ivwR bv nB‡j bvwgK mKj weev`x 1bs ¯^v¶x‡K D³ N‡ii g‡a¨ AvUK Kwiqv Zvjve× Kwiqv iv‡L| ivwÎ Abygvb 2 NwUKvi mgq bvwgK 1bs weev`x N‡ii Zvjv Lywjqv D³ N‡ii g‡a¨ cÖ‡ek Kwiqv 1bs ¯^v¶xi Iobv w`qv gyL evuwaqv †dwjqv †Rvic~e©K al©Y Kwi‡Z †Póv K‡i Ges bvix AsM ¯úk© Kwiqv AZ¨vPvi Kwi‡Z _v‡K| GK ch©v‡q 1 bs ¯^v¶xi gy‡Li evuab Lywjqv cÖvYc‡b wPrKvi w`‡j 2/3/4/5bs weev`x D³ N‡ii g‡a¨ Av‡m Ges 1bs ¯^v¶x‡K 1bs weev`xi mwnZ weevn †`Iqvi K_v ewj‡j 1bs ¯^v¶x Zvnv‡Z ivwR bv nB‡j bvwgK 1bs weev`x 1bs ¯^v¶xi Iobv w`qv 1 bs ¯^v¶x‡K nZ¨vi D‡Ï‡k¨ Mjv c¨vPvBqv awiqv k¦vmi“× Kwiqv †d‡j| bvwgK 1bs weev`xi nv‡Z _vKv †jvnvi iW w`qv 1bs ¯^v¶x‡K nZ¨vi D‡Ï‡k¨ gv_vq evwo gvwi‡j D³ evwo gv_vq bv jvwMqv cvLbvi gvSLv‡b jvwMqv ¸i“Zi RLg nq| bvwgK 3/4/5 bs weev`x 1bs ¯^v¶xi kix‡ii wewfbœ RvqMvq gvBiwcU Kwiqv dzjv RLg K‡i| GK ch©v‡q 1bs ¯^v¶xi wPrKv‡i ¯^v¶xMb AvMvBqv Avwm‡j weev`x‡`i Kej nB‡Z 1bs ¯^v¶x‡K D×vi Kwiqv †ejKzwP ¯^v¯’ Kg‡c‡· fwZ© Kwiqv †`q| Zrci Avwg Lei cvBqv evox Avwmqv ¯^v¶x‡`i wbKU NUbvi K_v ïwb| Avgvi †g‡q bvwgK weev`xM‡Yi gvBiwc‡Ui d‡j Amy¯’ nBqv †M‡j Zvnvi wPwKrmv KivBqv Zvnvi mvwU©wd‡KU msMÖn Kwiqv gvgjv Kwi‡Z wej¤^ nBj|Ó

The Officer-in-Charge of the police station at Belkuchi received the same and registered the case as Belkuchi P.S. Case No.14 dated 21.02.2003 under Section 5(1)/ 9(4) (kha) /10(1)/ 30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.

3. The police after investigation submitted a final report on 2 1.04.2003 and after getting information the complainant filed a Naraji petition to the Court of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal at Sirajgonj and after hearing both the parties the learned Tribunal accepted the Naraji Petition in part and took cognizance against the accused opposite party under Section 9(4) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain. 2000 vide order dated 18.05.2003.

4. Mr. S. N. Goswami learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the High Court Division committed an error of law in not giving effect the apprehension expressed by the complainant appellant's engaged lawyer Ms .. Shayama Akter Saima who stated in her affidavit as weÁ Av`vj‡Z Avmxb wePvi‡Ki Dcw¯‘wZ‡Z Avgv‡K gvgjvwU cÖZ¨vnvi K‡i †bevi Rb¨ Avmvgx c Pvc m„wó Kwi‡Z _vwK‡j Avwg GRjvm K Z¨vM Kwi‡Z eva¨ nB| He further submitted that the High Court Division failed to consider the main cause of grievance of the complainant appellant but wrongly held that 'if the allegation is true the learned Advocate for the complainant petitioner may lake steps in the concerned tribunal for their security in the Court and other places but on that ground it is not proper to transfer the case but old maxim justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.' The learned Advocate said the complainant is threatened by the accused respondent No, I and in the circumstances there appears a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the complainant that she will not get a fair trial or that she may be deprived to defend at the trial.

5. It appears from the record that allegation is that the accused opposite parties are very powerful men in the locality and on 14.02.2006 the accused persons attacked the complainants' witnesses in order to kill them and they also threatened that they would kill her when she appears before the Court. If the allegation is true the learned Advocate for the complainant petitioner may take steps in the concerned Tribunal for their safety in the Court and other places, but on that ground, it is not proper to transfer the case if the cases is transferred it will cause hardship to the accused opposite parties to conduct the case.

6. In view of the above we find no substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Barrister M. A. Muid Khan

(From previous issue)

NATO & Use of Force

Media coverage also infers that some legal authority for the use of armed force against Afghanistan or the Taliban was created by the resolutions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). That is entirely false. NATO, a regional organisation with the goal of restoring and maintaining the security of the North Atlantic area, resolved on September 12, 2001 that the September 11 attacks were covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and therefore all NATO members will consider the September 11 attacks as an armed attack against all NATO members.

Although this resolution enabled NATO countries to act collectively, countries were restricted to action determined by the North Atlantic Council. The September 12 resolution in clear language barred any action until further decision by the Council. "No collective action will be taken by NATO until further consultations are held and further decisions are made by the North Atlantic Council."

On October 5, 2001, NATO at the request of the United States agreed to take eight measures collectively and individually including the provision of "blanket over sight clearances for US. Aircraft" and provide access to ports and airfields to the US military. NATO thereby agreed to facilitate actions taken by the US outside the restrictions of the NATO decision- making process.

The United States rejected this collective approach and put together its own group of 'allies' leaving the US in control of all aspects of the current bombing of Pakistan, Afghanistan and of any future war actions including bombings of additional countries. Lloyd Axworthy correctly described the 'coalition' of which Canada is now an active member as a "hub-and-spoke arrangement, where direction comes from the centre with little input from the outside members." (The Globe and Mail, Monday October 8, 2001)

Article 52 of the Charter restricts regional agencies, including NATO, to activities consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The NATO resolutions cannot override the provision of the UN Charter. Yet without authorisation from the Security Council the US- led coalition forces invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and now bombing upon the Pakistani borders. US President Bush is also threatening to bomb other countries. These threats and the threats to "starve" the Taliban are themselves crimes pursuant to the provision of to the Geneva Convention Protocol 1 relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts.

The Geneva Convention & Use of Force

The Geneva Convention Protocol 1 is an absolute prohibition against attacks and threats of attacks on civilians. Protocol 1 prohibits all sorts of indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminant attacks are defined as including: attacks by any method or means that will either strike military and civilians' objects without distinction or cause death and injury to civilians disproportionate to the "concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Reprisals against civilians, starvation as a method of warfare and attacking or destroying objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food, crops, livestock, drinking water and irrigation systems are all strictly and absolutely prohibited.

Multi-lateral agreements against terrorism

Although the international community has not defined terrorism there are 11 international legal agreements that enable the international community to take legal actions to suppress terrorism and to prosecute those responsible for acts of terrorism. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Canada, the UK and the US are all parties to some of these agreements: Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan has ratified Nos. 1,2 and 3 and signed no. 6; Canada and the US have signed all and ratified all except nos. 6, 8 and 11; the UK has ratified all except No. 6.

While the rhetoric justifying war raids on the borders of Syria or Pakistan (and possibly other countries) suggests there are no laws or law enforcement mechanisms that can respond to the September 11 attacks. That is not true in the face of both international law and its underlying policies. When the US entered Germany in 1945, it was not suggested that millions of German civilians be stripped, gassed and bulldozed into mass graves in retaliation for the holocaust. The crimes that had been committed were so enormous that to even think of retaliation in like kind was unimaginably barbaric.

Instead the Nuremberg trials were held, setting up the rule of law as the most powerful opponent of rule by military force.

When Nicaragua claimed that the US was "recruiting, training, arming, supplying and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding and directing military and paramilitary actions in and against Nicaragua….[and] killing, wounding and kidnapping Citizens of Nicaragua", it took these claims to the International Court of Justice. No one suggested that Nicaragua could or should have retaliated with military action against the US.

Again in Congo v Uganda (2005), ICJ ruled that Uganda could not use force under the right of self defense in an action targeted against the irregulars in Congo violating its territorial boundaries.

Remember that in these cases, the target states allegedly were supporting the irregulars hiding within their territorial limits. In these cases the attacking states tried to rely on the agency between the target state and the irregulars to claim right to use force. If there is no such support for the hiding irregulars by the target state, the law requires more extensive burdens on the attacking state than mere assumption that the irregulars are found in its territory.

The general notion of law (opinio juris) seems to be that harbouring irregulars is not by itself a justification to violate state sovereignty by use of force unless it amounts to a tacit approval of terrorist attacks by the harbouring state. The only exception to this rule is that where the harbouring state has lost effective writ and has failed to remove the threat of terrorism from its territory.

Before invading Iraq, Cheney and Bush cited the possibility that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction as the rationale for a preemptive strike. Iraq was in violation of Security Council Resolution 687, which requires full cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. But this issue involved the Iraqi government and the United Nations. The Security Council did not specify any enforcement mechanisms in that or subsequent resolutions. Only the Security Council is empowered to take "further steps as may be required for the implementation of the resolution." Although the Security Council warned Iraq, in Resolution 1154, of the "severest consequences" if it continued its refusal to comply, the Council declared that only it had the authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."

Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter declare that no member state has the right to enforce any resolution with armed force unless the Security Council decides there has been a material breach of its resolution, and determines that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted.

Then, the Council must specifically authorise the use of military force, as it did in November 1990 with Resolution 678, in response to Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in violation of Security Council resolutions passed the previous August. The Security Council has not authorised any use of force for subsequent violations involving Iraq.

The recent US air strikes on the territory of Syria and Pakistan should have either of the two legal justifications i.e. either Syria or Pakistan is suspected to support or tacitly approve the acts of terrorists or it has lost writ on its territory and cannot eliminate the threat of terrorism. The newly uncovered "rules of engagement" reveal that the U.S. military gave elite units broad authority long ago to invade the territory of Pakistan to attack terrorist hideouts. Now the recent Congressional Research Committee report has stated that only 30 percent of the country is under the effective writ of the government of Pakistan. There is no real evidence to support this report. The use of force in Iraq was the result of a 'rogue state' having weapons of mass destruction that have never been found. Is Syria or Pakistan a 'failed state' having lost writ on its territory? Are there any other interpretations to the existing ambivalence?

In view of the above discussion, it is evident that any air strike by the US military aircrafts on Syrian or Pakistani border for the stated purpose of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and others associated with his organisation, is a flagrant violation of the International law. The attacks are also 'a gross violation of these countries sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also undermines the basic norms of international law and contradicts the very basis of cooperation between Syrian and Pakistani security forces and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), the coalition forces in Afghanistan. No international or national law or policy would legalise these strikes. No resolutions of the United Nations' Security Council or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation could provide a legal justification for these attacks and none do.

The world community has, through the United Nations and regional agencies worked to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" by prohibiting the use of force as a means of settling international disputes (The Charter); and, developing by global consensus, minimum standards of human rights and international laws that criminalise the crimes most intolerable to the world community including: crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of genocide. Prosecutions of the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks could take place in the national courts of either the US or a number of other affected states. Alternately, the Security Council can create an ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal on the model of the existing International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to conduct the global investigation of the September 11 attacks and the resulting prosecutions and trials.

*(The writer is a Barrister of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn, a Legal Consultant at Carr-Gomm and Appeal Consultant at a London Law firm and an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. He can be contacted at barristermuid@yahoo.co.uk )