Comparative Analysis Of Ict And International Criminal Court
⚖️ 1. Introduction: ICT vs ICC
Both the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh and the International Criminal Court (ICC) aim to prosecute serious international crimes, but their mandates, jurisdictions, and operations differ.
| Feature | ICT (Bangladesh) | ICC (International) |
|---|---|---|
| Establishment | 1973 Constitution of Bangladesh; operational from 2009 | Rome Statute, 2002; operational from 2002 |
| Jurisdiction | Crimes committed during Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971 | Crimes committed globally by state parties or referred by UNSC |
| Crimes | Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes under Customary International Law | Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression |
| Nature | Domestic tribunal with international law influence | Permanent international tribunal with international jurisdiction |
| Prosecution Authority | Chief Prosecutor appointed by Bangladesh Government | Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), independent |
| Appeals | Appellate Division of ICT; limited final review | ICC Appeals Chamber; international standard review |
| Enforcement | Relies on Bangladeshi law enforcement | Depends on state cooperation; ICC cannot enforce independently |
Key Difference: ICT is domestic but applies international law principles, whereas ICC is international and operates independently of any single state.
⚖️ 2. Legal Basis and Framework
ICT – Bangladesh
International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 (amended 2009)
Defines genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes.
Procedure modeled after Bangladeshi Code of Criminal Procedure, with modifications for international standards.
Objective: Prosecute 1971 Liberation War crimes.
ICC
Rome Statute, 2002
Defines ICC jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression.
Focus on complementarity: ICC intervenes when national courts are unwilling or unable.
Objective: Address impunity for the gravest crimes internationally.
⚖️ 3. Comparative Procedural Features
| Feature | ICT | ICC |
|---|---|---|
| Trial Process | Domestic trial with one or more judges; accused present; witness testimony | International trial with Pre-Trial, Trial, and Appeals Chambers; includes victim participation |
| Legal Representation | Local or assigned counsel; government funded for indigent | International or national counsel; legal aid guaranteed |
| Evidence Admissibility | Evidence under Bangladeshi law; allowance for hearsay in some cases | Strict international evidentiary standards; admissible documents, witness testimony, expert evidence |
| Sentencing | Death penalty, life imprisonment, or fixed term | Life imprisonment (no death penalty) |
| Appeals | ICT Appellate Tribunal | ICC Appeals Chamber, independent of domestic courts |
⚖️ 4. Case Law Analysis
ICT Cases (Bangladesh)
Case 1: Bangabandhu Memorial Case – Abdul Quader Mollah (2013)
Charges: Crimes against humanity and mass killings in 1971.
Judgment: Death penalty initially; reduced to life imprisonment by Supreme Court (public protests influenced review).
Significance: Demonstrates ICT’s use of international crimes principles within domestic law.
Case 2: Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid (2013)
Charges: Participation in genocide and mass murder in 1971.
Judgment: Death penalty; upheld on appeal.
Significance: Shows ICT’s application of command responsibility principle in domestic trials.
Case 3: Delwar Hossain Sayeedi (2013)
Charges: Religious persecution, crimes against humanity.
Judgment: Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment.
Significance: ICT balancing international law principles with domestic procedural considerations.
ICC Cases
Case 4: The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (DRC, 2012)
Charges: Enlisting and conscripting child soldiers (war crimes).
Judgment: 14 years imprisonment; first ICC conviction.
Significance: Illustrates ICC’s strict adherence to international law and procedural safeguards.
Case 5: The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda (DRC, 2019)
Charges: War crimes and crimes against humanity.
Judgment: Life imprisonment; largest victim reparations order (~$30 million).
Significance: ICC ensures victim participation, reparations, and international enforcement.
⚖️ 5. Comparative Observations
| Aspect | ICT | ICC |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction Scope | Limited to Bangladesh Liberation War | Global, state-party dependent |
| Sentencing | Includes death penalty | Life imprisonment; no death penalty |
| Victim Role | Limited participation | Extensive victim participation; reparations awarded |
| International Standards | Applies international law principles domestically | Fully international; procedural safeguards |
| Enforcement | Relies on domestic enforcement | Relies on state cooperation; limited direct enforcement power |
| Complementarity | N/A – domestic primary jurisdiction | ICC acts only when states fail to prosecute |
⚖️ 6. Conclusion
ICT: Domestic tribunal applying international law for historical crimes; allows death penalty; victim participation limited but tailored for local context.
ICC: Permanent international tribunal; applies international law globally; no death penalty; emphasizes procedural fairness, victim reparations, and global standards.
Case Law Insight:
ICT demonstrates national reconciliation and accountability (Mollah, Sayeedi, Mujahid).
ICC demonstrates global justice and victim-centered reparations (Lubanga, Ntaganda).
Key Takeaway: ICT and ICC share goals of ending impunity, but differ in jurisdiction, procedural rigor, sentencing, and enforcement mechanisms.
RELATED Blog
comments