A special tribunal in eastern Bangladesh announced on Wednesday that four men had been sentenced to death for the 2015 murder of a blogger and writer who had promoted secularism in the Muslim-majority country.

The victim, Ananta Bijoy Das, 32, a banker by profession who wrote for the platform Free Mind, was among several bloggers and writers fatally attacked that year. He was chased down in the eastern city of Sylhet by four men, who stabbed him to death on a street close to his home and left his body near a pond.

“We are happy with the verdict,” Somor Bijoy Shee Shakhor, Mr. Das’s brother-in-law, told The New York Times. “We cannot get Ananta back. The only thing we want is justice.”

Just 10 weeks before Mr. Das’s death in May 2015, Avijit Roy, a Bangladeshi-American who was the moderator of Free Mind, had also been killed, by machete-wielding assailants as he was leaving a book fair in Dhaka, the capital.

And five weeks after Mr. Roy’s death, another blogger, Oyasiqur Rahman, was killed by three men with machetes in Dhaka.

Later that year, Faisal Arefin Dipan, Mr. Roy’s publisher, was killed by a group of assailants in his Dhaka office.

The killings sent a chilling message to secular bloggers in Bangladesh, where a bitter cultural battle has raged over whether the country is, or should be, a Muslim state.

A militant group, Ansarullah Bangla Team, claimed responsibility for the deaths of Mr. Das, Mr. Dipan and Mr. Roy. The group was banned in May 2015.

On Feb. 10, 2021, an antiterrorism special tribunal in Dhaka sentenced eight to death for killing Mr. Dipan.

Six days later, the tribunal sentenced five more people to death and another person to lifetime imprisonment for the killing of Mr. Roy.

A verdict in the trial of those accused of killing Mr. Rahman has not yet been released.

All of those found guilty in the killings of Mr. Das, Mr. Dipan and Mr. Roy were part of the Ansarullah Bangla Team. According to the BBC, the tribunal in Mr. Das’s murder said that his killers had believed they were acting as part of a “jihad” to stop the writers producing anything that the group interpreted as being against Islamic beliefs.

Nurul Amin Biplob, a judge at the tribunal, in Sylhet, announced the penalty on the four found guilty, Abul Khaer Rashid Ahmed, Abul Hossain, Faisal Ahmed and Harunur Rashid. Only Abul Khaer Rashid Ahmed is in custody; the other three are at large.

The prosecutor, Muminur Rahman Titu, said, “Justice has been served for Ananta.”

“The tribunal has ordered the police to arrest the convicts who are on the run,” he added. “We expect it will be done soon.” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/world/asia/bangladesh-blogger-death-sentence.html

21. CHINA SCENE
    Two U.K. Judges Quit Hong Kong Court, Citing Lost Freedoms
    By Austin Ramzy in The NY Times, Mar 31, 2022
    HONG KONG — The president of Britain’s Supreme Court said Wednesday that he and a colleague were stepping down from their roles on Hong Kong’s highest court because the administration of the Chinese territory had “departed from values of political freedom and freedom of expression.”

Their resignations will heighten scrutiny of Hong Kong’s British-style legal system, which the former British colony kept even after it returned to Chinese control in 1997. While the system has long had a reputation of independence, Beijing’s imposition of a strict national security law on Hong Kong in 2020 has put it under increasing pressure to uphold the government’s crackdown on dissent.

Judges from countries including Britain, Australia and New Zealand have served as nonpermanent judges on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal alongside the city’s chief justice and other local judges. The arrangement was devised to maintain the legal system’s contact with the greater common law world even after control of the territory returned to Beijing.

The resignations of the president of Britain’s Supreme Court, Robert Reed, and Patrick Hodge, the deputy president, will add to questions about the autonomy of Hong Kong’s judiciary.

Lord Reed said in a written statement that judges of Britain’s Supreme Court could not continue sitting in Hong Kong “without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression, to which the Justices of the Supreme Court are deeply committed.”

The national security law had made the question of whether such participation was in Britain’s national interest “increasingly finely balanced,” he said, adding that Hong Kong’s courts “continue to be internationally respected for their commitment to the rule of law.”

The resignations were backed by the British government, with Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, and Dominic Raab, the deputy prime minister, saying they endorsed the move.

“The situation has reached a tipping point where it is no longer tenable for British judges to sit on Hong Kong’s leading court, and would risk legitimizing oppression,” Ms. Truss said in a statement.

The Hong Kong government expressed “vehement opposition” to criticism about the city’s legal system and the security law in a statement on Wednesday. It accused Britain itself of putting political pressure on Hong Kong’s judiciary, arguing that a debate in Parliament on Wednesday on the role of British judges in Hong Kong “may well have influenced the resignation of the two serving U.K. judges.”

Andrew Cheung, the Hong Kong chief justice, said in a statement on Wednesday that the courts were committed to upholding the rule of law and judicial independence in the territory.

“This commitment is wholly unaffected by the departure of the two judges,” he added.

The role of the British Supreme Court judges on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal is unique because they are acting judges at home. Other foreign judges on the Hong Kong court, including current members from Britain, Australia and Canada, are retired.

But the resignation of the high-profile British judges could pressure others to follow, legal experts said.

“This will influence a lot of public opinion, even though it may not actually be true in terms of the state of justice in Hong Kong,” said Simon Young, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong.

“This ongoing perception and reality — you see this great divide,” he added. “And then, of course, it puts the other foreign judges in a difficult position because they will be asked, ‘If this is true, why are you staying?’”

James Spigelman, a judge from Australia, stepped down from Hong Kong’s top court in 2020, citing the security law.

More than 150 people have been arrested under the national security law since it was imposed in 2020. They include Jimmy Lai, the founder of a now-shuttered pro-democracy newspaper, and 47 of the city’s most prominent opposition politicians and activists, who were accused of trying to subvert the government by vowing to block its agenda in the legislature.

The law introduced some significant changes to Hong Kong’s system, including allowing the government to designate which judges would hear cases under the law, and strictly limiting bail. Most of the politicians and activists charged under the law remain in jail awaiting trial more than a year later.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/world/asia/hong-kong-british-judges.html