New Delhi, Nov 17 (NationPress) The Rights and Risks Analysis Group (RRAG), a human rights organization based in New Delhi, criticized the conviction of former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina along with two of her senior aides, labeling it a 'farce' and a 'miscarriage of justice'. They assert that the genuine offenders have evaded punishment.

The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) found Hasina, along with former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal and former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, guilty of crimes against humanity in connection with last year's protests.

Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted from power, has been sentenced to death due to two specific charges linked to the unrest in July.

According to RRAG's Director, Suhas Chakma, the death sentence for Hasina and Kamal, along with a five-year term for Al-Mamun, represents a political farce that does not adhere to international fair trial standards, ultimately failing the victims.

Chakma asserted that trying Hasina in absentia constitutes a violation of fundamental international human rights norms regarding fair trials.

He pointed out that the interim government of Bangladesh did not pursue Hasina’s extradition from India, stating that if they had substantial evidence, they could have sought her return through India's Supreme Court.

He emphasized that any nation committed to the rule of law should request the extradition of accused individuals, similar to how India has pursued extradition cases in Portugal and Belgium.

Chakma remarked, 'Bangladesh lacks evidence, which is why they opted for a Kangaroo Court trial against Hasina and her associates.'

He highlighted that Hasina faced accusations including the murder of Abu Sayed near Begum Rokeya University, the killing of six unarmed protesters in Dhaka's Chankharpul, and the deaths of six students in Ashulia last year. 'How can she be charged when the actual criminals are not even mentioned in the chargesheet?' Chakma questioned.

Furthermore, he stated that Al-Mamun should not be considered a key witness to these crimes as he was not present at the crime scenes.

During the court's judgment announcement, Chakma noted that the ICT referenced reports from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and BBC as part of the evidence.

'The reports from these organizations cannot stand as evidence unless their representatives testify and provide corroborative evidence, especially given the gravity of a death sentence. No witness testimonies or cross-examinations occurred during the trial, making it a miscarriage of justice for the victims since the real offenders remain unpunished,' he concluded.