The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Sheikh Hasina, leader of the opposition of the Parliament of Bangladesh at the time the communication was submitted, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/189/11(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 188th session (April 2011),

Recalling that, according to the Home Ministry’s report of March 2010, the investigation into the grenade attack of August 2004 against the then opposition leader Sheikh Hasina and other Awami League members, which left scores of people dead and wounded, revealed the following: the grenade attack was decided on at a meeting in the government quarters of then Deputy Minister Abdus Salam Pinto; his brother, Mr. Moulana Mohammad Tajuddin, supplied the grenades for the attack; former State Minister for Home Affairs Lutfozzaman Babar and Mr. Salam Pinto provided administrative and financial support, and the government of the time arranged for Mr. Tajuddin to leave Bangladesh; the attack had been carried out with the help of Islamist militants belonging to the Horkatul Jihad al Islami (Huji), several of whom, including its leader, Mufti Hannan Munshi, were arrested in connection with the case,

Considering that, according to the information provided by members of the Bangladeshi delegation on the occasion of the 125th IPU Assembly, after many extensions of the deadline for submitting the final investigation report, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), on 2 July 2011, submitted a supplementary charge sheet against 30 more persons, including Lutfozzaman Babar, Mr. Tarek Rahman, Senior Vice-President of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) (and son of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia), Mr. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid, Secretary General of Jamaat E Islami Bangladesh and Mr. Harris Chowdhury, Political Adviser to Begum Zia under sections 120(b), 324, 326, 307, 302, 201, 118, 119, 212, 217, 218, 330, 109 and 34 of the Penal Code and split up the charge sheet under section 3, 4, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act; that the case is now under trial by the Court of Metropolitan Session Judge Speedy Trial Court,

Considering that the source also names Begum Zia’s nephew, Mr. Saiful Islam Duke, two former directors general of National Security Intelligence and two former heads of police as mentioned in the charge sheet;

Considering further the following information provided by the source:

• On 27 July 2011, the court criticized the prosecution for failing to produce a progress report on the arrest of the 12 suspects who remained at large and directed it to submit by 11 August 2011 a report on the execution of the arrest warrants; it appears that the court subsequently ordered the authorities to publish advertisements in two Bangladeshi daily newspapers asking - to no avail - Mr. Rahman and Mr. Chowdhury and the 10 others to appear before it; the latter two are said to be in the United Kingdom;

• On 8 September 2011, the murder case and the case filed under the Explosives Act were shifted to the Speedy Trial Tribunal-1 in Dhaka for quick disposal and Mufti Hannan Munshi reportedly petitioned to recant his earlier confession, alleging that he had been tortured, which petition was rejected, reportedly mainly on procedural grounds,

1. Is gratified to note that the investigators appear to have identified all those suspected of involvement in the crime, both perpetrators and instigators;

2. Trusts that the authorities are doing everything possible to ensure that the persons who remain at large are indeed apprehended and that, as the next logical step after the recent decisions by the court, they will issue international arrest warrants for those proving to be abroad; looks forward to receiving, in particular from the Parliament, information on this point along with details on developments in the proceedings in the case before the Speedy Trial Tribunal; also wishes to receive official information regarding Mufti Hannan’s petition to recant his confession and its reported dismissal;

3. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the competent authorities and to the source;

4. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held during the 126th IPU Assembly (March/April 2012).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 125th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 718 Kb approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS