Court Watch
stan Army. In December 1971, approximately 90, 000 Pakistani troops surrendered to Indian forces, thus marking the end of the end of the Bangla- desh Liberation War.
Bangladesh’s war for independence lasted only nine months, but the scale of the atrocities com- mitted during that short period is remarkable. Women were systematically raped and tortured, entire communities burned to the ground, and intellectuals and minorities like the Hindus were rounded up, mutilated, and killed. As in most armed conflicts, the death toll varies depending on the source, but the Bangladeshi government claims over three million people were killed, while Pakistan has the figure as low as 26,000 civilian casualties.
6
After achieving independence, the new Bengalese government passed the International Crimes (Tri- bunals) Act of 1973, which established a court for prosecuting the Bengalese paramilitaries who col- laborated with Pakistan during the war, and who were largely thought to be responsible for the atrocities committed against civilians. But because of political reasons, no cases were ever brought.
Finally, in March 2010 the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act was amended and cases began to be brought before the court. As a former leader of an Al-Badr unit during the Liberation War, Del- war Hossain Sayedee will be among the first to be tried under the amended (Tribunals) Act. The crimes against humanity charges brought against him include murder, extermination, genocide, rape, loot, and arson.
Bangladesh is in the unique position of bringing long-overdue justice to those who were forever impacted by the ravages of the Liberation War. And whether the accused is Delwar Hossain Sayedee or one of the other seven defendants since arrest- ed, Bangladesh should be acutely aware that the world is watching.
* Submitted by James Foster
Inter-American Court of Human Rights To Rule On Costa Rican In Vitro Fertilization Ban
In August 2010, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (the Commission) issued a rec- ommendation to Costa Rica stating that the Cos- ta Rican law banning in vitro fertilization violated several human rights treaties. In vitro fertilization, commonly referred to as IVF, is the process of fertilizing an egg outside a woman’s womb. After other assisted reproductive methods have failed, it is considered the main treatment for infertility. This practice has been outlawed in Costa Rico since 2000. When Costa Rica failed to comply with its recommendation, the Commission commenced a lawsuit against Costa Rica in the Inter-American Court on Human Rights.
The rulings issued by the Commission on whether human rights violations occurred are not binding but are very influential. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights’ decisions, however, are bind- ing on 24 of 35 members of the Organization of American States, including Costa Rica.
Before 1995, there were no laws covering IVF in Costa Rica. On February 3, 1995, the president of Costa Rica issued a decree allowing the use of IVF for married couples only, restricting the use of ovules to six, and requiring all embryos to be in- serted in the womb. This law already was much more restrictive than IVF laws in most other coun- tries. On March 15, 2000, the Costa Rican Consti- tutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared this law unconstitutional because it vio- lated “the life of embryos” which is against the Catholic faith. Catholic countries exercise stricter controls over the use of embryos than other coun- tries, but Costa Rica is one of 43 Catholic coun- tries that ban IVF altogether.
In 2004, the Commission decided that the plain- tiffs in the case of Ana Victoria Sanchez Villalobos and others v. Costa Rica had exhausted all local remedies since the Constitutional Chamber, which banned IVF in Costa Rica altogether, is the highest
ILSA Quarterly » volume 20 » issue 2 » December 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112