What ousted PM Hasina’s death penalty means for Bangladesh

The International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh on Monday delivered a landmark verdict against ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina, finding her guilty of serious criminal offenses linked to the deadly political unrest that swept the country in July and August 2024.

The tribunal concluded that Hasina bore responsibility for widespread violence, unlawful killings and human rights violations committed by state forces during the protests. Prosecutors sought the death penalty, reflecting the severity with which the court viewed the charges.

Although the full judgment has not yet been released, the tribunal’s decision marks the first time a former Bangladeshi head of government has been convicted for contemporary political violence under laws originally framed to prosecute 1971 war crimes.

At the core of the tribunal’s case were allegations that Hasina either directly ordered or tacitly authorized the use of lethal force against demonstrators during the nationwide uprising.

The unrest, triggered by student protests and later joined by workers and professionals, escalated rapidly into violent confrontations across Dhaka and other major districts.

Security forces were accused of firing live rounds into crowds, conducting widespread beatings, detaining civilians illegally, and engaging in extrajudicial actions in the name of restoring order.

International agencies estimated that more than 1,400 people were killed during the unrest, a figure the tribunal adopted in assessing the scope and gravity of the violence. The court treated these deaths as evidence of a coordinated state crackdown rather than dispersed or isolated incidents.

Prosecutors argued that the scale, timing and consistency of the security response indicated central direction from the highest levels of government.

They presented communications transcripts, audio clips and testimony from state employees and civilians to argue that the violence could not have occurred without political authorization.

While details from these materials have not been independently released, the tribunal’s conviction suggests it accepted the prosecution’s claims that Hasina exercised command responsibility, a principle derived from international criminal law that holds leaders accountable for crimes committed by subordinates when they know or should know of abuses and fail to prevent or punish them.

The tribunal also examined a series of human rights violations that occurred under the government’s watch during the unrest. These included allegations of torture of detainees, enforced disappearances and targeted attacks on individuals perceived as political opponents.

Prosecutors highlighted patterns of intimidation against journalists, reports of police firing into residential areas, and documented incidents of violence against minority communities. The court treated these as part of a broader climate of unlawful state action that intensified as protests spread and state control faltered.

The verdict indicates the tribunal found that the government’s response crossed legally permissible bounds and amounted to deliberate abuse of state power.

Another significant aspect of the tribunal’s evaluation involved the destruction of public property. Government buildings, police stations and communications infrastructure were damaged or burned in the unrest.

While the former administration attributed these acts to protestors and outside agitators, the tribunal appears to have considered whether some incidents were used as justification for escalating force or whether they occurred in contexts where state inaction contributed to the violence.

International reports cited by prosecutors indicated that security forces sometimes withdrew from crime-affected areas or responded selectively, fueling suspicion that the unrest was used to rationalize a broader crackdown.

The tribunal reviewed death toll discrepancies extensively. The government’s verified figure of 834 deaths conflicted with the UN-reported estimate of 1,400. The court relied on the higher figure, underscoring the extent to which fatalities influenced its findings.

Jurists treated the magnitude of deaths–spread across districts and concentrated during specific phases of the crackdown–as evidence that the state’s use of force was systematic. The tribunal’s acceptance of the higher toll was central to its determination that the crimes met the threshold of offenses under the ICT’s jurisdiction.

The verdict places the events of 2024 within the same legal framework the tribunal historically used to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. By applying that framework to actions taken by a contemporary government, the court reasserted the principle that large-scale political violence against civilians is punishable regardless of context or political office.

In seeking the maximum sentence allowable, prosecutors signaled their view that the crimes were among the most serious to come before the tribunal.

The ruling sets a far-reaching precedent in Bangladesh’s legal landscape. It holds that political leaders can be criminally liable for the conduct of security forces during civil unrest and that the state’s failure to protect civilians–or its active role in harming them–may constitute an international crime under domestic law.

The release of the full judgment is expected to clarify the tribunal’s legal reasoning, but the verdict already stands as one of the most consequential in the country’s modern history.

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