Symposium on Bangladesh Genocide and International Law: Analysis of a Unique Nation from Liberation to Justice

Introduction

Following the previous blog posts which placed a historical overview on the independence of Bangladesh, this entry aims to elucidate the journey so far with regard to truth and reconciliation, half a century later.

In its 51st year of independence, although Bangladesh has transformed itself from an “economic basket case” to being one of the fastest growing economies, it is still largely overlooked by major actors of international law with regard to recognition of genocide, accountability, and ensuring justice.

This piece therefore seeks to shed light on the truth and reconciliation measures adopted by Bangladesh in the face of inaction by the United Nations (UN) to establish a fact-finding commission—as seen in Syria or Myanmar—or to initiate international trials of Pakistani perpetrators, as happened in the cases of the ICTY, ICTR, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

Challenges to Secure Justice in the Initial Years of Liberation

This inattention persists despite the fact that the atrocity crimes committed against Bangladesh were described as one of the most severe and destructive genocides of the twentieth century.

Within a year of liberation, in 1972, the International Commission of Jurists recommended the creation of an international tribunal to prosecute the crimes in its report, Commission of Enquiry into the Events in East Pakistan in 1971.

In pursuit of justice, and while simultaneously facing post-conflict trauma, displacement, and natural calamities, the first post-independence Government of Bangladesh enacted:

• the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order 1972, and

• the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973

These measures demonstrated Bangladesh’s eagerness to prosecute and convict perpetrators of war crimes.

The tribunal established under the 1973 Act has been described as one of the earliest post-war accountability mechanisms after the Nuremberg Trials, preceding later tribunals in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Sierra Leone.

However, many local collaborators who had been detained or convicted were later released through a general amnesty, influenced by broader geopolitical developments culminating in the Delhi Agreement between Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

The purposes of those arrangements included:

1. repatriation of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention,

2. creating a peaceful frontier between India and Pakistan, and

3. facilitating war crimes trials in Bangladesh.

In hindsight, the author argues that Bangladesh made major concessions by prioritising humanitarian and diplomatic settlements while justice was effectively sidelined.

Political Upheaval and Grassroots Transitional Justice

With little sustained international interest and limited legal engagement, Bangladesh then experienced the 1975 coup d’état and subsequent years of authoritarian rule, followed by democratic transition only in 1991.

These disruptions delayed formal accountability efforts. Yet civil society, victims’ families, and ordinary citizens continued pursuing transitional justice measures.

People’s Tribunal (1992)

Inspired by the Russell Tribunal, relatives of victims established a symbolic People’s Court in 1992. It held informal trials of suspected collaborators, some of whom would later be formally prosecuted before the ICT-BD.

Though lacking legal authority, it reflected the enduring public demand for justice.

Mass Enquiry Committee (1993)

In 1993, a Mass Enquiry Committee was formed to:

• investigate crimes,

• gather evidence, and

• produce reports identifying alleged perpetrators.

Memory Preservation and Reconciliation

Bangladesh also pursued reconciliation through memorialisation and truth-seeking, including:

• testimony collection

• archives and documentation

• arts and culture initiatives

• museums such as the Liberation War Museum

These efforts align with broader notions of transitional justice, where truth-seeking helps:

• create historical records

• prevent denialism

• acknowledge victims

• support reconciliation

• rebuild national identity

• strengthen accountability

Resumption of Formal Justice Process

Only in 2010 was the International Crimes Tribunal formally reactivated under the 1973 Act.

As of the time of writing, the ICT had issued 44 judgments.

These prosecutions are presented as a significant transitional justice mechanism because criminal accountability can:

• address grave human rights violations

• reinforce rule of law

• restore order in post-conflict societies

Whether trials are national or international, prosecution may also provide victims with acknowledgement that justice has been served.

National Justice Versus International Accountability

The author argues that while domestic prosecutions are compatible with international law frameworks such as the UN Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute, crimes of this magnitude also demand accountability at the international level.

Bangladesh, rather than being praised for pursuing delayed justice domestically, has often faced criticism for its tribunal process.

At the same time, delays inevitably created practical evidentiary challenges involving:

• crime scenes

• witness testimony

• documentary evidence

• expert analysis

Pakistan and Continuing Impunity

According to the author, Bangladesh has pursued justice through transitional justice mechanisms, while Pakistan continues to avoid accountability despite being party to instruments including:

• the Geneva Conventions

• the Genocide Convention

• the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The article further argues that Pakistan’s failure to investigate or prosecute alleged perpetrators may amount to a continuing breach under the ILC Articles on State Responsibility.

Comparative Examples

The article contrasts Bangladesh’s experience with later internationalised justice mechanisms such as:

Cambodia – Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)

A hybrid tribunal combining domestic and UN structures, notable for victim participation rights.

East Timor – Special Panels for Serious Crimes

Established under the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), exercising internationalised criminal jurisdiction.

These examples are used to argue that comparable international support was not extended to Bangladesh.

Conclusion

The article concludes that despite limited international assistance, Bangladesh has independently pursued justice through:

• domestic criminal prosecutions

• memorialisation

• truth-seeking

• civic activism

• reconciliation efforts

More than fifty years later, Bangladesh is portrayed as a unique case: a nation whose liberation struggle was followed by a long and persistent pursuit of justice without the degree of international institutional support granted in later atrocity situations.

Shaoli Dasgupta is described as a graduate student at BRAC University and legal counsel at BRAC, working with the Liberation War Museum on Bangladesh and Rohingya genocide issues.