As Sheikh Hasina Plans Her Return, Can a Tribunal Accused of Fair-Trial Failures Legitimately Try International Crimes? - Part I

This is the first of a two-part series raising substantial concerns regarding whether Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal, which convicted and sentenced Sheikh Hasina to death, has complied with internationally recognised fair trial standards.

“I may be killed. I may be arrested. I may be sent to prison… I am fully aware of my fate. Still, I want to go back because my people are calling me.”

THESE WERE THE WORDS of Bangladesh’s former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in a recent email interview, announcing her intention to return to Bangladesh by December 2026 after more than a year in exile. Her proposed return comes despite a death sentence imposed by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (‘ICTB’), specifically ICT-1, placing renewed attention on one of South Asia’s most consequential criminal prosecutions.

The case, however, extends beyond the fate of a former head of government. It raises a more fundamental question for international criminal justice: can a tribunal established to prosecute international crimes command legitimacy where the proceedings through which accountability is pursued are themselves alleged to fall short of internationally recognised standards of due process?

On November 17, 2025, ICTB convicted Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal of crimes against humanity under the amended International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973. Both were sentenced to death, while former Inspector General of Police Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, having cooperated with the prosecution, received a reduced sentence of five years' imprisonment. The proceedings against Hasina and Kamal were conducted in absentia, with neither accused being represented by a counsel of their own choosing. 

The prosecutions arose from the violent suppression of the July-August 2024 student protests, during which Bangladeshi security forces committed grave human rights violations. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that more than 1,400 protesters were killed, approximately 11,700 individuals were detained, and at least 180 children lost their lives. It further found reasonable grounds to believe that the systematic use of lethal force by State security agencies may amount to crimes against humanity. 

There can be little disagreement that those responsible for these atrocities should be investigated and, where the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, prosecuted. Yet the legitimacy of international criminal justice rests not merely upon punishing perpetrators but upon ensuring that accountability is administered through independent institutions and procedures that faithfully observe the guarantees of a fair trial. This assumes particular significance where the accused faces capital punishment. The more serious the allegation, the greater the obligation upon the State to demonstrate scrupulous adherence to legality, judicial independence and due process.