Bangladesh should set aside Mir Quasem Ali Death Penalty: Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch: Set Aside Mir Quasem Ali death Penalty - Bangladesh

Bangladesh: (Mir Quasem Ali’s) War Crimes Verdict Based on Flawed Trial

Chief Justice Calls Prosecution “Incompetent” and Evidence “Insufficient”

(New York) – Bangladeshi authorities should immediately set aside the death penalty against Mir Qasem Ali, a senior member of the executive committee of opposition party Jamaat-e-Islaami, and order a new trial that meets international fair trial standards, Human Rights Watch said today.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction against Ali despite earlier statementsin court by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, criticizing the attorney general, prosecutors, and investigators for producing insufficient evidence in the trial court. According to credible, detailed notes from the hearing in the Supreme Court, he said to the prosecutors: “What prevented the investigation agency to produce sufficient witnesses to prove the charges? … The prosecution and the Investigation Agency need to produce sufficient evidence to support a conviction… We feel really ashamed when we read the prosecution evidence.” The attorney general, Mahbubey Alam, in turn was quoted saying, “The Supreme Court observed that a huge amount of money is being spent on the prosecutors and investigators, but they did not handle and investigate the cases properly.”

Bangladesh ICT Mir Qasem Ali

Bangladesh’s Attorney General Mahbubey Alam leaves the Supreme Court in Dhaka after the court’s verdict on appeals by two opposition leaders on November 18, 2015. Bangladesh’s Supreme Court rejected final appeals from two opposition leaders against death sentences for atrocities committed during the 1971 war of independence.

“Convictions can only be upheld when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, yet in this case there are grave doubts about the evidence after the court so strongly criticized the prosecution,” said Brad AdamsAsia director at Human Rights Watch. “In death penalty cases the authorities must adhere to the highest standards.”

Ali was convicted and sentenced to death in November 2014, by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) on 10 out of 14 counts of abduction, torture, and confinement as crimes against humanity. For these crimes, he was sentenced to 72 years in prison. Ali was also convicted on two further counts of murder, in one case of two adults and in the other of a child, Jashim Uddin. He was sentenced to death for the murders.

On March 8, 2016, the Appellate Division of the Bangladeshi Supreme Court set aside three of the abduction and torture convictions. It also acquitted Ali of the murder of the two adults. However, it upheld the conviction and death penalty sentence against Ali for the murder of Jashim Uddin during the war.

Human Rights Watch has long supported justice and accountability for the horrific crimes committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 war. But this must be done through trials which meet international standards, particularly since the death penalty is at stake. Bangladesh owes the victims of 1971 a fair and proper accountability process.

Brad Adams

Asia Director

As in other cases before the ICT, the defense was arbitrarily limited in its ability to submit evidence, including witnesses and documents. Defense lawyers were allowed to produce only three witnesses to counter 14 separate charges. Lawyers were threatened orally with a 50 lakh taka (approximately US$64,000) fine when they asked the judges to review their order limiting witnesses. The court denied the defense the opportunity to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses by rejecting witnesses’ earlier statements that were inconsistent with their trial testimony. The refusal to allow the accused to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses has been a hallmark of trials before the ICT.

During the appeal at the Supreme Court, the chief justice called the prosecution and its investigation agency “very incompetent.” He accused the prosecution of dealing with proving the case against Ali “half-heartedly” and with “no responsibility.” The chief justice said he was “shocked” and that the prosecution’s case against Ali was full of contradictions. He expressed particular concern at the prosecution’s failure to rebut the accused’s alibi defense, which put Ali in Dhaka on the day of the murder in Chittagong: “Defence could produce a series of documentary evidences in support of their alibi. But the prosecution and the investigation agency were very incompetent.”

The chief justice further went on to accuse the prosecution of using the ICT trials purely for political benefit and political interests: “We are very disappointed to see that you are using these trials out of your political benefits. These trials are being used for political interests.”

The chief justice’s sentiments echo those made by the Supreme Court in its written verdict in another ICT case against Delwar Hossain Sayedee. The chief justice wrote that verdict when he was a justice on the Supreme Court before his promotion to chief justice. In that case, Sayedee’s death penalty was commuted by the Supreme Court to a life sentence, though it stopped short of ordering a new trial.

The chief justice’s statements in the Ali case caused a furore among those backing the ICT trials. A government minister, Qamrul Islam, called for the removal of the chief justice and for a rehearing to be held.

“Human Rights Watch has long supported justice and accountability for the horrific crimes committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 war. But this must be done through trials which meet international standards, particularly since the death penalty is at stake,” said Adams. “Bangladesh owes the victims of 1971 a fair and proper accountability process.”

Trials before the ICT have been replete with violations of the right to a fair trial. The ICT has fundamental flaws because of article 47(A) of the constitution, which states, “This Article further denies any accused under the ICT Act from moving the Supreme Court for any remedies under the Constitution, including any challenges as to the unconstitutionality of Article 47(A).” The article specifically strips people accused of war crimes of certain fundamental rights, including the right to an expeditious trial by an independent and impartial tribunal, and the right to move the courts to enforce their fundamental rights. This article has permitted the ICT overly broad discretion to deny those accused in this and prior cases the rights and procedures accorded to other defendants.

Many of the trials before the ICT have been marred by evidence from intercepted communications between the prosecution and the judges that has revealed prohibited and biased communications. The ICT’s response on several occasions to those who have raised objections about the trials has been to file contempt charges against them in an apparent attempt to silence criticism rather than to answer substantively or to rectify any errors.

The UN Human Rights Committee, which interprets the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a state party, has said that, “in cases of trials leading to the imposition of the death penalty, scrupulous respect of the guarantees of fair trial is particularly important” and that any death penalty imposed after an unfair trial would be a violation of the right to life and to a fair trial.

Human Rights Watch reiterated its longstanding call for Bangladesh to impose an immediate moratorium on the death penalty and join the growing number of states that have abolished the use of capital punishment.

“We welcome the fact that the chief justice identified problems with the evidence in the Ali case, but the court should follow through by ordering a retrial,” Adams said. “Allowing the death sentence in a case with such fundamental doubts about the evidence is unthinkable.”

Lord Carlile on Mir Quasem Ali Death sentence – Bangladesh ICT trials can no longer maintain fair trial, rights of accused

House of Lords

The Lord Carlile of Berriew QC CBE

Friday, 11 March 2016

Re: International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), Bangladesh

In a decision that offends Justice, the Bangladesh Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in respect of Mir Quasem Ali and condemned him to death.

On 8 March 2016, the Bangladesh Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the appeal of Mir Quasem Ali who had previously been convicted and sentenced to death by the ICT. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence and thus condemned Ali to death.

The case before the ICT was full of inconsistencies, bias, political interference, and denial of any established national or international fair trial standard.

In exchanges between the Chief Justice and the Attorney General, the Chief Justice rightly and appropriately highlighted the lack of evidence against Ali. Also, he castigated the Attorney General for what he saw as a flawed trial process.

The Attorney General had no answer to the clear allegations being made by the Chief Justice.

It is therefore astonishing that, despite the clear opinions of the Chief Justice, the appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentence upheld.

We need only consider the recent comments of the Bangladesh Minister for Food, who, when publicly discussing the appeal and exchanges between the parties prior to the judgment, stated “…I think there should be a rehearing of Mir Quasem’s appeal without the chief justice”.

There has long been suspicion of political influence being wrought over ICT trials. It is clear, given the Minister’s comments, and the fact that the convictions and sentence were upheld despite the Chief Justice’s comments, that this suspicion has now been a significant degree more credibility.

No longer can the supporters of the ICT maintain that it is transparent, independent, and respects of the fair trial rights of those individuals who appear before it.

I call upon the Bangladesh Government to accept the offers of international assistance so as to ensure that the ICT really does deliver the justice that is so sadly lacking at present.

Lord Alex Carlile

The Lord Carlile of Berriew QC CBE

Click below for signed statement

Microsoft Word – 160310 Carlile Letter.docx

Bangladesh : A chaotic day – Mir Quasem Ali death sentence upheld | Court Proceedings 08.03.2016

Mir Quasem Ali After hearing his death penalty!! অসত্যের কাছে নত নাহি হবে শির - ভয়ে কাঁপে কাপুরুষ লড়ে যায় বীর। মৃত্যু দন্ড রায় শুনার পর মীর কাসেম আলী |

8th March 2016 – Tuesday -MQA Case in Appellate Division

Before the judges:


Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha – HCJ

Justice S M Hossain – HJ(2)

     Justice Md. Hasan Foez Siddique- HJ(5)

Justice Mirza Hossain Haider – HJ (6)

 Justice Md. Bazlur Rahman – HJ (8)


Sub: Announcement of Appeal Judgment

Item 1 Cr Appeal No 144 of 2014 Mir Quasem Ali (MQA)


The State


A cause list of cases to be taken up by the appellate division is usually published the day before. On 7th March, the cause list of 8th March was published with the Mir Quasem Ali was Item no.1 ‘for pronouncement of judgment’.

On 8th March morning, a supplementary cause list was served replacing the original list of the day. In this supplementary list Item no. 1 was for Full court (all the judges of the Appellate Division) to pass order. Announcement of judgment in the MQA case was removed from the supplementary list.

09:05am- court proceeding started and all the judges of the Appellate Division took their seats..

9.05 am-

Chief Justice (CJ)- We have seen in the newspaper on 5th March 2016 that two ministers of the government made some defamatory comments attacking the judiciary and the office of chief justice therefore this court is issuing a ‘suo moto’ rule upon (1) Food Minister Advocate Qumrul Islam and (2) Liberation War Affairs Minister AKM Mozammel Haque asking them to show cause as to why their statements would not be considered as contempt of the court. They have to submit their written statement before 14.03.2016 and they have to present in person on 15.03.2016 to explain their position.

09.20am– The full court adjourned and all the judges left the court room. Thereafter the five judges who heard the appeal came back and preparing to start hearing other cases in the supplementary list.

09.22am– All the counsels for the Appellant and the journalists came out of the court room as there was nothing in the supplementary list to show that judgment would be passed today. But after 3/4 minutes they were called back to court.

09.26 am

CJ- there is a mistake in our supplementary list. We told our staff to include ‘Pronouncement of judgment’ in this case as item 1(a) of the list. But the relevant court officer mistakenly did not include it in the supplementary list. We have told them to correct the supplementary list. (he was very angry upon the court staffs). What is happening here? The concerned person should be removed. Call him.


CJ- what’s going on today? Why are they so late? (He ordered to remove one of the court officers – all the judges left the court room for the supplementary list to be corrected).

Necessary corrections were made to the supplementary list.

09.40 am

The five judges came back to court room.

Khandker Mahbub Hossain (KM) – there are still error in the supplementary list. After Item No. 1 the 2nd item is also mentioned as Item No. 1.

Cj – these are technical errors. The 2nd item should be mentioned as Item No. 1(a). Please make necessary correction in the list manually.


CJ – On the reasons to be given later on the Appeal is allowed in part. The Appellant Mir Quashem Ali is acquitted in Charge Nos. 4 (7 years), 6 (7 years), and 12 (death). The Appeal in respect to conviction in Charge Nos. 2 (20 years), 3 (7 years), 5 (7 years), 7 (7 years), 9 (7 years), 10 (7 years), 11 (death) and 14 (10 years) is dismissed. The sentences passed by the tribunal in those charges are maintained.

(Senior Counsel Advocate Khandker Mahbub Hossain, Advocate S. M. Shahjahan, Barrister Tanvir Ahmed Al-Amin and Barrister Mir Ahmed Bin Quasem was present in court as the counsel for the Appellant to receive the appeal judgment)

End of court proceedings in this appeal.


09.45am- The defense team was heading back to president’s room where the press conference usually takes place while many pro government people chanting slogans and showing statue of hanged human bodies while many of them were giving interviews to TV channels. It was a chaotic situation.

10.00am– Khondokar Mahbub Hossain was stuck in this chaos. He could not reach his room and the press surrounded him on his way. He said to press that “since it is a judgment of the Apex court we have to accept it and as a lawyer of this court I don’t have any comment on it but I only want to say that This Judgment will be judged by the history, the history will only judge this verdict one day

Bangladesh Chief Justice – ‘No direct evidence against Mir Quasem Ali, Prosecutors & Investigators should be put on dock too’ – Final Day of Appeal Hearing 24.02.2016


24thFebruary 2016 – Wednesday -MQA Case in Appellate Division

Before the judges:


Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha – HCJ

Justice S M Hossain – HJ(2)

     Justice Md. Hasan Foez Siddique- HJ(5)

Justice Mirza Hossain Haider – HJ (6)

                                    Justice Md. Bazlur Rahman – HJ (8)


Sub: Appeal hearing against the Tribunal Judgment (24th Day of February 2016) – last day of hearing

Item 1 Cr Appeal No 144 of 2014 Mir Quasem Ali (MQA)


The State


09:02am- court proceeding started and all the judges took their seats..

9.03am- AG (Attorney General) started reading written arguments on charge 11.

Chief Justice (CJ) – India contested a case before the ICJ over the dispute over guwan. The Indian counsel was Mr. Jitendar. He was basically a Supreme Court lawyer; he has no idea of International Law. India engaged three internationally reputed lawyers one from England one from Switzerland and one from Netherland. Then the question arose who would argue the case on behalf of India? Jitendar said he had no problem of working under other international lawyers. But the AG of India, I forgot his name, who said you would lead the team. He had no knowledge of international law. But when he started argument, you know he didn’t have any foreign degree just he completed a degree in India. He was master of facts. At that time Dr Zafarullah Khan was a colleague; he invited Mr. Jitendar for the dinner to praise him. But he wrote to a letter saying, ‘sorry I would not attend, since the case is still pending for hearing’. India initially thought he would give verdict against India but later it turned out to be it is he who raised the voice for India and India won the case.

AG: The other reason for Dr Zafarullah Khan to give verdict for India was that he was a member of the Ahmedia Community, they were persecuted in Pakistan but was safe to practice their faith in India.

CJ: when we read these legal philosophies when we read about these heroes, then it seems I am nothing.


AG continued reading arguments on Charge-11.

CJ: When you are command in superior, the responsibility of superior automatically come to you.


AG was explaining why Dr Rajib Humayun, the brother of murdered victim jashim, could not testify as a Prosecution Witness.

AG – your lordships can take notice of the fact that Dr Rajib Humayun supports white panel is Dhaka University which is supporter of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. This is why he did not testify (to support the prosecution case).

CJ: Many things change by passage of time (he seems to have had accepted this explanation given by AG).

HJ(3): Charge 11 is for abduction torture and murder of jashim. But is there any evidence that appellant abducted jashim, tortured or killed Jashim? Can we justify death sentence here?

AG: (with very angrily and loudly) of course. There are evidences of many people who saw Jashim in Dalim Hotel. This is a trial under special law. You don’t need to look for direct evidence to award death sentence.

HJ(3) Is there any direct evidence to say that appellant killed jashim ?

CJ hurriedly came forward to stop HJ(3) from asking more question.

CJ: – AG your argument would be that we should look into gravity of the offence. If the offence is proved then we may award death sentence. In Qader Mollah’s case we have observed this. The appellant’s participation need not be material. We should see whether he was Al-Badar. You may proceed with your written argument. You may reply when you make your oral submissions.

9.45 am

AG started reading written argument on charge-12 (Killing of Tuntu Sen and Ranjit Das- where the appellant was awarded Death sentence by a split judgment)


AG started reading written argument charge no 14 (Abduction, confinement and torture of Nasirudding Chowdhury-PW-3).

10.09 am:

AG started reading written argument on Alibi.

10.15 am-

AG started reading written argument on whether defence should be allowed to get benefit of previous inconsistent statement of a Prosecution witness (PW) – he showed that in Quader Molla and Kamruzzaman cases Appellate Division has already decided that the Appellant would not get that benefit.

CJ – Who passed these judgments? Your Investigation officer? They are incompetent? They don’t know how to record statement of witness. In Saydee’s case you had to rush to Pirojpur and Barishal to collect documents. But your investigation agency could not do that for this trial of Mir Quasem Ali. Defence could produce a series of documentary evidences in support of their alibi (which were all infact prosecution exhibits). But the prosecution and the investigation agency were very incompetent. The appellant, prosecution, investigation agency should be put together in the same dock.

10.17 am

AG started reading written argument on the issue that in war crimes cases the court can rely upon weak type of evidences.

10.22 am-

AG – Now I will show you a document collected yesterday. This documents show that the Appellant spent US $ 25 million in a US lobby Firm called Cassidy & Associate to void this war crime trial process.

(AG gave copies of the alleged contract to the judges. Appellant’s counsel SM Shahjahan (SM) wanted a copy – but AG replied that it is a classified document and you will not get a copy. Then Senior counsel Khandker Mahbub Hossain (KM) requested for a copy and AG supplied copies of the documents. These are an alleged contract with Cassedy & Associate appointing them a lobbyist in USA)

CJ – have you filed any money laundering case against him?

AG – I don’t know.

KM – these are fabricated allegations which were reported in news papers supporting government. Then the Anti Corruption Commission investigated the matter and found no truth in the allegation.

AG – The appellant is a very wealthy man. He can manage everything. He engaged lobbyist firm in USA to foil the trial process of the war criminals.

KM – these are false allegations and found to be untrue.

CJ: recently two newspaper published by quoting two former chief justice of America that American judiciary has become very commercialized. 53% litigants lost their cases because of lawyer’s inefficiencies. American bar is very commercialized and politicized. It has no credibility at all. You can do anything you want by spending money there. When a Supreme Court judge died there, president Obama was threatened by the congress. American judiciary is now highly commercialized and entirely politicized. They have no credibility left. I recently said this when addressing a program. Justice system in USA will fail in next century.

10.34 am

AG – In Sayedee judgment at page 134-135 you made some observation that you can take judicial notice of fact of common knowledge that the Appellant was a Powerful person and the witnesses were in fear to give evidence against him. This applies in the present case also.

CJ – (with proud) – who passed these judgments? Your prosecutors? (he said in a sarcastic tone)

10.45 am

A.G- by giving suggestion to PWs defense accepted that the Appellant was in Chittagong. Only two prosecution documents to show that he was in Dhaka to give statements. Statements can be made from anywhere. If you are in Chittagong it can be made from Dhaka.

HCJ(3): but he was not that influential leader who could give any statement from a different place. So when it is reported that he is giving a statement from Dhaka – we cannot decide otherwise in absence of evidence.

AG- but defence by giving suggestion to PW admitted that the Appellant was in Chittagong.

CJ- I find it out during their argument. Now you are using it.

AG – we are greatful to your lordships.

CJ – but from news reports of 24.11.1971 it shows that he was in Dhaka.

AG – it was not impossible to move from Chittagong to Dhaka during that time.

CJ: You have to show how he went to Chittagong after that day. By a military Helicopter? (in a sarcastic tone)

AG: In 1971 there was regular train service from Dhaka to Chittagong.

HCJ(3) – but during November and December 1971 the entire communication was disrupted due to the activities of the freedom fighters.

CJ – What prevented you investigation officer to bring a witness to say that after 24.11.1971 the Appellant travelled back to Chittagong. They are incompetent. Prosecution dealt with this case half-heartedly.

AG – I agree with you. I was looking into the order-sheet of this case. There was no chain of command in the prosecutors. Different prosecutors examined witness on different day. The closing argument was made by a prosecutor who was not present during trial.

CJ – we are shocked seeing these. They have spent public fund – and this is the type of case they have prepared which is full of contradictions. This case was handled with no responsibility.


AG concluded his argument.

KM – (Appellant’s counsel) – SM will place an argument on command responsibility. Then I will conclude the appeal for the Appellant.

CJ – No. We want to hear you.

SM – I told you earlier that at the end I would place my written argument on Command Responsibility.

CJ – We will hear KM.

SM – in that case you can keep the copy of my written argument on command responsibility. (He handed over the written argument to the Judges and CJ took it very reluctantly).

CJ: We have already decided these issues. (He seems to have made up his mind and he was not willing to hear a single word from SM)


KM started his concluding arguments.

KM – SM has already made detail submissions on charges. I will make concluding remarks on Charge-11 and 12 where death sentences were awarded. I will also make arguments on Alibi defence. (he handed over a written note of his concluding arguments). The charges were defective. In the charge framing order it is alleged that from 19.11.1971 the Appellant committed the alleged offences while being president of Chittagong ICS town unit. But it is evident from the prosecution exhibited document shows that after 07.11.1971 he was no longer president of Chittagong Islami Chattra Shangha (ICS) town unit as he was promoted as General Secretary (GS) of central ICS and moved to Dhaka. The Tribunal was under misconception that during the alleged occurrences he was in charge of Chittagong ICS. But the prosecution exhibited document it is evident that after 07.11.1971 Mr. Abu Taher was president of Chittagong ICS.

CJ: we have already decided in other cases that if there is a little error in the charge framing it doesn’t matter. Please give reply to our queries. Why you did not give suggestion of denial to PW-17 (witness of Charge-11).

KM – it is not correct. We suggested denial to PW-17 denying the allegations.

CJ – this general denial was not sufficient.

KM – but this is how the Tribunal advised us to give denial to PWs. They did not allow us to give detail suggestion of each assertions of denial to PWs.


Court went for 30 minutes recess.

11.30am- court resumed.

CJ: The tribunal recorded demeanor of PW-17 that she was crying at the time of here examination in chief.

KM – she was complaining about killing of her cousin (Jasim) – but she admitted that she was an editor of a daily news paper called ‘Sikrity’ during 1972-1975 and she also admitted that she did not write anything about the incident of Charge-11 or Dalim Hotel in that news paper. How can you rely such witnesses. Moreover she is a hearsay witness allegedly heard about the alleged incident after three months.

CJ: Ok, come to PW-8 (interrupting without allowing KM to finish). You also did not give ‘proper’ denial to him.

KM: We certainly rely on Prosecution Witness-8 – it is evident for this witness that the Appellant was not the ‘Khan Shaheb’ as alleged. He also said that during November-December 1971 the communication between Dhaka and Chittagong was seriously disrupted. The prosecution did not call him hostile.

CJ – ok, come to next point (without allowing KM to finish) – you did not deny that you were not leader of ICS.

KM – yes. This is fact. The Appellant cannot be prosecuted for his political belief.

CJ: if you admit to be ICS that means you were Al Badar. We have held this in other cases. Al Badar was a killing squad so he has to take all these responsibility.

KM – But we showed you from the prosecution document that the Appellant was not in charge of Chittagong ICS during that time. Investigating Officer admitted that the police report of 1972 to 1975 does not show that the Appellant was Al badar.

CJ was bombarding KM with questions without allowing him time for full reply of the previous question.


(While these serious injustices were talking place, the appeal hearing was interrupted by a thunderstorm outside- the doors and windows were shuttering – as if someone is knocking at the door of the court room. KM was still presenting although nothing could be heard due to the haulage of this gruesome storm.)

12.10 pm-

KM: you have said that there are serious weaknesses in the prosecution case. You have now two options. Either to send this case on remand for a retrial, or you have to acquit the Appellant giving him benefit of doubt as the charges are not proved.

CJ – if we send this case on remand for retrial then the evidences those were presented before us may not even come back. The Investigation Officer (IO) may give statement in your support that the Appellant was never seen in Chittagong altogether. Its your good luck that IO did not say anything against the Appellant. We are very impartial. We make our decision behind closed doors.

KM: there is no direct evidence against the Appellant. He was not involved in the alleged offences.

CJ: Don’t say that he is not involved. You may say that this is not a case for death penalty. (CJ was arguing against each and every submissions of KM).


KM: if there is any doubt it goes to the defense.

CJ: hearing concluded, judgment on 02.03.2016.

The Appellant’s counsel left the court room.

1.10 pm – one Deputy Attorney General visited KM’s chamber and informed him that CJ was calling him as he wanted to change the date of judgment. KM rushed to court.

1.15 pm

CJ – I am busy on 02.03.2016 and I have to visit foreign country after that. The date of judgment is changed to 08.03.2016.

KM – as you wish.


(Senior Advocate Khandakar Mahbub assisted by Barrister Tanvir Ahmed Al Amin and Barrister Mir Ahmad BinQuasem)

عام 1976 وهو مؤسس منظمة ساترو شبير الإسلامية وهى الآن أكبر منظمة طلابية إسلامية في بنغلاديش|ميرقاسم علي

ولد ميرقاسم علي في عام 1952 في وقت انخرط في أنشطة الدعوة الإسلامية مع منظمة الطلابالإسلاميساتور سنوغوا،عام 1976 وهو مؤسس منظمة ساترو شبير الإسلامية وهى الآن أكبر منظمة طلابية إسلامية في بنغلاديش.


ولد ميرقاسم علي في عام 1952   في وقت   انخرط في أنشطة الدعوة الإسلامية مع منظمة الطلابالإسلاميساتور سنوغوا،عام 1976 وهو مؤسس منظمة ساترو شبير الإسلامية   وهى الآن أكبر منظمة طلابية إسلامية في بنغلاديش.

التحق برابطة العالم الاسلامى بعد الانتهاء من الحياة الاكاديمية   عام 1977،وتم اختياره من قبل  سفير المملكة العربية السعودية سعادة الاستاذ فؤاد الخطيب ليكون المنسق الرئيسي لرابطة العالم الاسلامى التي أطلقت أكبر المساعدات الإنسانية في تاريخ البلاد للاجئين المسلمين من روهينجا الذين فروا إلى بنجلادش بسبب   المجزرة التى نفتذتها حكومة  أراكان، ميانمار.

 وفى وقت لاحق تم تعينه المدير القطري  لرابطة العالم الاسلامى                                                                                                             قاد  الجهود الإنسانية لإعادة تأهيل الروهينجا، الذين تقطعت بهم السبل اللاجئين بنت المعروفة باسم بهار والجهود الإنسانية للشعب في منطقة التل المسالك شيتاغونغ. كما كان المدير المؤسس لمنظمة هيئة الإغاثة الإسلامية العالمية (هيئة الإغاثة الإسلامية العالمية).

تنفيذ النموذج الاقتصادي الإسلامي: مير قاسم علي كرس شبابه وحياته من أجل تحفيز الناس بنجلاديش لإظهار أن النظام الاقتصادي الإسلامي هو المفتاح لازدهار البلاد والنجاح. فعل ذلك عن طريق إنشاء المؤسسات، والتي سوف تمارس النموذج الإسلامي من الأعمال والأخلاق الإسلامية في تجارة وتشغيل المعاملات المالية. 


أعماله : وقد ساهم فى انشاء 15 مدرسة و تدارعلى المنهج الإسلامي ، 11 مستشفى في جميع أنحاء البلاد والتي توفر الرعاية الصحية بأقل تكلفة ممكنة، 3 كليات الطب، معهد التمريض والمأوى للنساء الفقيرات ومراكز البحوث للاقتصاد الإسلامي. وكان نائب رئيس لأكبر بنك إسلامي في بنغلاديش لمدة 16 عاما. وأخيرا، كان قد أسسها 1 صحف وطنية و1 قناة التلفزيون الفضائية التي كانت مصدرا للأخبار أصيلة ووضع مثال جديد من الترفيه العائلي دون مواد غير لائقة. وكان التلفزيون هو المكان الوحيد الذي سمح مذيعي الأخبار لتظهر على الشاشة مع الحجاب. وتمتلك جميع هذه المؤسسات من قبل الثقة ، إلا أنه لم يتخذ أي منفعة شخصية من كل مئات من المؤسسات التي تأسست في جميع أنحاء البلاد.

اعتقال: مير قاسم علي اعتقل في يونيو 2012 من مكتب الصحيفة التي أسسها. وكان في عهدة السجن لأكثر من 3 سنوات عندما حكم عليه بالإعدام شنقا في نوفمبر 2015.

القضايا المرفوعة : ووجهت إليه تهمة بارتكاب 12 جريمة التعذيب و2 اتهاما بالقتل خلال حرب الاستقلال في عام 1971 عندما كان طالبا في المدرسة الثانوية يبلغ من العمر فقط 19 ل. حاول الحزب الحاكم لجلب شهود الزور ولكن حتى لهم لا يمكن أن يجلب الأدلة ضد مير قاسم علي لاظهار انه كان أي كيف تشارك شخصيا مع التعذيب والقتل المزعومة. هو أنهم لم يسمعوا عن شهود عيان أن أقول اسم واحد خان الذي كان قائدا ويفكرون في مير قاسم علي. لم يكن هناك أي شاهد عيان، لا أدلة وثائقية ما من أي وقت مضى لإظهار كان مير قاسم علي (19 عاما) زعيم المجموعة التي ارتكبت هذه الجرائم المزعومة. صدر الحكم من 3 قضاة في محكمة جرائم الدولية، حيث برأت 1 القاضي له تهمة القتل و 2 قضاة حكمت عليه بالإعدام. القضاة تجاهل أدلة وثائقية قدمها مير قاسم علي لإظهار أنه كان في مدينة مختلفة في وقت وقوع الحادث.

النيابة غير كفء مع العيوب الرئيسية في الأدلة ضد مير قاسم : رئيس المحكمة العليا خلال جلسة الاستئناف وانتقد “عدم كفاءة الإجراءات القضائية ضد مير قاسم علي. وانتقد النائب العام (محامي الحكومة) لفشله في جلب شهود كافية لإثبات الذنب. وأشار أيضا إلى أن مقدم الأخبار قصاصات الورق الوثيقة لسنة 1971 مما يدل مي علي كانت في دكا حيث الادعاء ضده كلها في شيتاغونغ. وعلق رئيس المحكمة العليا أن النيابة كانت “فاترة” وأن المدعين العامين والمحققين ينبغي أن يكون خارجا على قفص الاتهام لفشلها في إجراء هذه الحالة على نحو فعال. (المصدر: صحيفة بروثوم الو وديلي ستار، فبراير 24 –  2016.)

سيتم النطق بالحكم في الاستئناف الذي قدمه ضد حكم الإعدام الصادر بحقه في  8 مارس    2016