The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-BD) continues to hear high-profile cases involving alleged enforced disappearances under the former Awami League (AL) government, but defense arguments and survivor reappearances have raised serious doubts about whether these qualify as enforced disappearances under domestic or international law.
In October 2025, ICT-1 issued arrest warrants for 34 individuals across three separate cases (17, 13, and 4 accused respectively) for crimes against humanity, including enforced disappearances, torture, and related abuses. Among them were 27 serving or retired army officers (16 active at the time). Bangladesh Army Headquarters confirmed on October 11 that 15 officers (some on pre-retirement leave) were taken into military custody, with one fleeing. The cases involve disappearances of figures like Brig. Gen. (Retd.) Abdullahil Amaan Azmi (son of convicted 1971 war criminal Ghulam Azam), Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem (son of executed Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mir Quasem Ali), Humam Quader Chowdhury, and Michael Chakma.
Azmi and Quasem vanished in August 2016 (Azmi from Banani, Quasem from Gulshan, Dhaka). Both were released in August 2024 and described severe ordeals in so-called “Aynaghor” facilities: blindfolds, beatings, isolation. Azmi claimed eight years in a dark room over anti-India posts and alleged army insults; he displayed a long-used towel that remained “fresh.” Intelligence sources described his detention in a furnished Dhaka flat with amenities. Quasem’s torture accounts faced inconsistencies after a supervised site visit.
On March 8, 2026, the tribunal heard cross-examination of key prosecution witness Barrister Mir Ahmad Bin Quasem (also known as Mir Arman) in a case linked to the Task Force for Interrogation (TFI) cell. Defense lawyer Aminul Gani Tito (for Col. KM Azad) asserted Arman had been in hiding for eight years, not disappeared by any agency, and that his book Aynaghorer Sakshi, Gumjiboner Aat Bochor (Witness to the Mirror House: Eight Years of Disappeared Life) contained falsehoods. Arman denied this.
Disappearance Drama: Once used against Awami League, now against Hindus
Sheikh Hasina condemns trial of patriotic army officers in illegal ICT-BD
Trial of Army Officers in ICT-BD: Challenge to sovereignty in extra-legal actions
ISI Blueprint: 15 army officers implicated in ICT-BD case under custody
Questioned on physical evidence—a gamchha (towel) around his neck, lungi, and T-shirt from alleged captivity—Arman said the investigating officer requested them but they were not preserved. The defense alleged intentional destruction, which he rejected. A documentary on his “disappeared life” was screened; at the defense’s request, a segment (19:40) showed him in the clothing from claimed original CCTV footage. Tito suggested it was staged for the film; Arman insisted the footage was authentic.
Ten arrested army officers were produced in an air-conditioned prison van from Dhaka Cantonment’s special prison, including: Brig. Gen. Md. Jahangir Alam (former RAB Additional DG), Brig. Gen. Tofayel Mustafa Sarwar, Brig. Gen. Md. Kamrul Hasan, Brig. Gen. Md. Mahbub Alam, Col. KM Azad, Col. Abdullah Al Momen, Col. Anwar Latif Khan (pre-retirement leave), Col. Md. Moshiur Rahman (former RAB intelligence director), Lt. Col. Saiful Islam Sumon, and Lt. Col. Md. Sarwar Bin Kashem.
Defense sought more time for cross-examination; the tribunal scheduled March 10 despite prosecution objections. Fugitives include Hasina, ex-Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, ex-IGP Benazir Ahmed, and former RAB chiefs.
Legal Doubts
Experts emphasize that proving enforced disappearance requires state involvement/acquiescence, denial of custody/knowledge, and ongoing concealment of the victim’s fate/whereabouts. The survivors’ public reappearance and testimony break the concealment element—the crime’s cornerstone. Their presence undermines the legal definition of “disappearance.” At best, these may involve wrongful/secret detention or torture, not enforced disappearance.
Adjudicating such claims risks paradoxes: living plaintiffs testifying to their own “nonexistence.” This highlights logical and legal challenges.
Broader Context: ICT as a politicized tool?
Critics argue the ICT-BD, originally established for 1971 war crimes, has been repurposed post-2024 uprising under the Yunus interim regime as a revenge mechanism. Jamaat-e-Islami leadership—long targeted by AL for war crimes trials (e.g., executions of Mir Quasem Ali, Ghulam Azam) and tough actions against jihadist-linked groups (JMB, Al-Qaeda affiliates, Hizb ut-Tahrir)—is seen by some as influencing or benefiting from cases targeting AL figures and security forces.
The Yunus administration revised ICT-BD law multiple times via ordinances, raising fairness and legitimacy questions. While some view these as necessary for accountability (e.g., post-July 2024 crackdowns), others see them as rushed, lacking due process, and enabling selective justice against secular/nationalist forces. In the completed trials, the prosecution did not take into consideration the admission of crimes, including murder of police and Awami League members, looting and arson by the protesters during the anti-government movement.
The tribunal’s credibility remains contested amid Bangladesh’s polarized politics, with ongoing cases fueling debates over vengeance versus genuine justice.