Beyond Procedural Fairness: Understanding the Significance of Sheikh Hasina's Trial in Bangladesh's Quest for Justice

Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal sentenced Sheikh Hasina to death on November 17, a verdict that may unsettle many observers. However, for the families of approximately 1,400 people who died during the July-August uprising last year, this represents a significant step toward justice.

The verdict acknowledges state responsibility in the bloodshed and challenges the long-established impunity enjoyed by Bangladesh's political elite.

International rights organizations have raised valid concerns. Human Rights Watch criticized the trial for falling short of fair-trial standards, noting that Hasina was tried in absentia, lacked proper legal representation, and had limited opportunity to present her defense.

Amnesty International condemned the death penalty as cruel, questioning the fairness of the process. The United Nations, while acknowledging this as an "important moment" for victims, expressed reservations about capital punishment and trials conducted in absentia.

These criticisms warrant consideration but should not overshadow the verdict's deeper significance.

Far from being a superficial political maneuver, the tribunal's nearly 500-page judgment builds upon substantial evidence, including independently verified audio recordings that implicate Hasina in authorizing lethal force against civilians. The judgment meticulously documents the chain of command and demonstrates how deadly authority was exercised.

This marks a departure from Bangladesh's historical approach to mass atrocity trials, which often relied heavily on political considerations rather than factual evidence. Unlike previous proceedings, such as those for 1971 war crimes that often depended on partisan testimony, this trial featured stronger evidentiary standards.

While procedural imperfections exist—particularly the in-absentia death sentence—these shortcomings do not automatically indicate political manipulation. The tribunal thoroughly addressed command responsibility, documenting how orders resulted in civilian casualties.

Bangladesh's recent amendments to align its laws with international standards on crimes against humanity suggest this represents part of a broader institutional transformation rather than a crisis-driven legal adjustment.

Dismissing the verdict as mere vengeance misrepresents what many Bangladeshis view as accountability. For decades, political elites wielded unchallenged power while families mourned silently. This verdict signals that their losses matter and that even political dynasties must face consequences for ordering mass violence.

Beyond the death sentence, the tribunal has mandated victim compensation, documentation of abuses, and institutional reforms—establishing foundations for meaningful redress.

Critics who focus exclusively on the death penalty miss this broader framework: a nation declaring that power should have limits, that state violence must be accounted for, and that collective suffering demands substantive responses.

While debates about fairness and international standards are important, rejecting the trial entirely because it wasn't "ideal" risks prioritizing procedural perfection over social justice.

For many Bangladeshis, accountability represents a promise rather than an abstract legal concept. In this context, the Hasina verdict, despite its flaws, marks a necessary break from a history of unpunished political power.

(Faisal Mahmud is the Minister (Press) of Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author