Full Tribunal Verdict Published: Inu Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison Without Involvement in Murder or Repression

    Staff Correspondent

---

The full verdict on the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence handed down to Jasad president and former information minister Hasanul Haque Inu has sparked fresh debate over the basis for determining liability against him. In a 500-page verdict, the International Crimes Tribunal-2 said there was no evidence that Inu himself killed anyone.

Hasanul Haque Inu did not control the armed forces, police, RAB or any other law enforcement agency. However, the tribunal found that he gave political legitimacy and moral support to the repressive activities during the July uprising and that he had a deliberate contribution to various decisions and actions.

 

A total of eight charges were brought against Inu. Of these, the third, sixth and seventh charges have been proven. Although each charge carries a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, the sentences will run concurrently. As a result, he will effectively have to serve a total of 10 years in prison. At the same time, a fine has been imposed on the sixth and seventh charges. He has been acquitted of the other five charges.

After the full verdict was released, one of the most discussed issues was how someone who did not directly commit any murders and was not in command of any forces was found guilty of crimes against humanity?

 

What does the tribunal’s full verdict say?

According to the Tribunal’s observations, Inu’s role was not limited to directly carrying out the crimes with weapons; rather, his responsibility arose from his political position, participation in high-level decision-making processes, support for repressive measures, and contribution to related activities.

The verdict said that Inu had political influence as the president of the JSD and an important leader of the then 14-party alliance. He participated in high-level policy-making discussions and was in direct contact with the then Prime Minister. The verdict also mentions his participation in various meetings where strategies for suppressing the movement were discussed.

According to the tribunal, Inu also played a role in creating a political narrative by branding the protesters as militants, terrorists, conspirators or enemies of the state. The verdict also mentioned his support for measures such as identifying and listing the organizers of the movement, their early arrests and weakening the leadership.

In other words, the tribunal’s reasoning is that Inu’s case is not based on direct participation in the killings; rather, it is based on his role in the political and organizational process of state repression and his knowing contribution to those activities.

 

Guilty on three of eight charges, acquitted on five

Inu was convicted on three of the eight charges brought in the case. The tribunal acquitted him on the remaining five charges as the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The proven charges include involvement in political oppression and torture, conspiracy and incitement, and a conspiratorial role in the commission of crimes against humanity. The tribunal found that Inu’s role in these cases was not merely at the level of expressing political statements or opinions; rather, he was a deliberate contributor to the larger process of committing crimes.

On the other hand, he was acquitted of some of the charges that involved direct orders to kill, involvement in specific killings, or a more direct role in the crackdown.

In particular, the eighth charge, including the murder of six people in Kushtia, was not proven. Similarly, the tribunal did not find the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient for several other charges.

Here, two aspects of the verdict are seen side by side—on the one hand, Inu was acquitted of some of the charges of direct murder, while on the other hand, he was found guilty of three charges of contributing to the crime through his political and organizational role.

 

The interpretation of the verdict raises questions of political bias.

Journalist Taimur Faruk Tushar raised questions about the tribunal’s decision after the full verdict was published.

He alleged that the direct involvement of Inu in the types of murders and crimes that were charged against him was not established in the full verdict. He said that it is clear from the verdict that Inu himself did not kill anyone and did not control any law enforcement agencies. Still, he was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on the basis of ‘moral support’ or political support.

Tushar also alleged political bias in the judicial process. He claimed that a large part of the charges brought against Inu during the government affiliated with BNP and Jamaat-affiliated political forces were not proven in court. According to him, since direct responsibility for the murder was not established, ‘moral support’ was ultimately used as the basis for determining responsibility.

According to Tushar, such decisions raise questions of political influence in the judiciary, and similar legal interpretations may be applied against leaders of other political parties in the future.

However, there is an important difference between his statement and the full verdict. While Tushar sees ‘moral support’ as the main basis for sentencing, the tribunal’s verdict considers political support as well as multiple factors such as participation in meetings, contribution to repressive measures, conspiracy and incitement. At the same time, Inu was acquitted of five charges.

Tushar’s main question is here – if a political leader’s political position, statements, participation in meetings, or support for a state action are the basis for criminal charges, even if he does not directly participate in a murder, then to what extent will this standard be applied in the future?

He expressed concern that this could create opportunities to use similar explanations against political opponents.

Tushar raised the question of whether the same interpretation of liability will be applied to those involved in the deaths of Awami League leaders and activists in prison in the future or those involved in police killings during the 2024 movement. He also raised the question of whether there would be a demand for punishment such as death penalty or life imprisonment against them based on political support, statements or organizational role, even if there is no evidence of direct participation in the killings.