Sheikh Hasina’s Death Sentence, the International Crimes Tribunal, and Justice in Bangladesh
On 17 November 2025, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death in absentia. The tribunal found her guilty of crimes against humanity for ordering and enabling a violent crackdown on a student-led uprising in July–August 2024, in which up to 1,400 people were killed and thousands injured.
ted security forces, authorized live ammunition and drone attacks on largely unarmed protesters, and failed to prevent or punish widespread abuses. Former officials, including the then home minister, were also convicted. Hasina, now in exile in India, has rejected the verdict as politically manipulated and has not appeared before the court.
The ruling follows a period of intense political volatility, including the fall of Hasina’s government in August 2024 and the installation of an interim administration led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.
How Bangladesh reached this point after the July 2024 uprising
The immediate context is the nationwide student movement that erupted in mid-2024 against a controversial quota system reserving a large share of civil service jobs for veterans’ families. What began as a policy protest quickly broadened into a mass uprising against perceived authoritarianism, enforced disappearances, and long-standing curbs on dissent.
According to a UN fact-finding report, security forces responded with systematic and often lethal force between 1 July and 15 August 2024. The report estimates that as many as 1,400 people were killed, many of them shot by security forces, with 12–13% of the dead being children. More than 11,000 people were detained and thousands injured; gender-based violence and threats of sexual assault were also documented.
The UN and international human rights organizations have stated that there are reasonable grounds to believe these violations could amount to crimes against humanity and have called for genuine accountability for those who ordered, enabled, and carried out the repression.
moment when the death sentence was passed at the ICT
How the International Crimes Tribunal became both instrument and judge
The same ICT that has now sentenced Sheikh Hasina to death was revived and empowered by her own government in 2010, under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973, to prosecute atrocities committed during the 1971 Liberation War.
For many Bangladeshis, especially families of 1971 victims, the tribunal represented long-delayed recognition of historic crimes. At the same time, domestic and international observers – including human rights groups and legal scholars – consistently raised concerns about political bias, weak defence rights, and the use of the death penalty. Critiques have highlighted:
selective targeting of political opponents;
limits on cross-examination and access to evidence;
pressure on judges and defence lawyers;
contempt proceedings used to silence criticism of the court;
standards that fall short of international fair-trial norms.
Now, that same tribunal has tried and convicted Sheikh Hasina herself, in absentia, for crimes against humanity related to the 2024 crackdown. The basic irony is clear: a court long criticised for its political alignment and procedural weaknesses is being used to judge the former leader who once relied on it. The underlying concern, however, is not personal but structural—whether a tribunal with these unresolved deficits can deliver justice that is credible to victims, defendants, and the wider public.
What is at stake when the death penalty is used for political crimes
From a human-rights perspective, the issue is not only who is on trial but how the state punishes. Bangladesh retains the death penalty for a wide range of offences, and at least 2,000 people are believed to be on death row. International human rights bodies and organisations have repeatedly called for an immediate moratorium, including in cases before the ICT, and for steps towards full abolition.
The concerns are sharpened in a case like Hasina’s:
Irreversibility and politicisation – A death sentence, especially following a trial in absentia and amid ongoing political transition, risks appearing less as neutral justice and more as the ultimate sanction wielded by one political order against another.
Fair-trial deficits – Long-standing questions about the ICT’s adherence to due process mean that the most severe punishment is being imposed within a framework that has never fully answered its critics.
Human dignity – International human rights standards increasingly view the death penalty as incompatible with the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment, regardless of the gravity of the crime.
Opposition to Hasina’s execution can sit alongside a clear recognition that serious crimes were committed during the crackdown, and that those with command responsibility must be held to account.
How accountability can be pursued without executions
The central challenge is to respond to the July 2024 atrocities in ways that uphold the rights of victims and avoid repeating patterns of state violence. A justice-oriented approach could involve:
Independent and transparent investigations
– Thorough, public investigations into killings, disappearances, torture, and sexual violence during the 2024 protests, with findings accessible to survivors and families, not just to state institutions.
Trials that meet international fair-trial standards
– Prosecuting those most responsible, including senior officials, in proceedings that guarantee equality of arms, meaningful defence rights, and the possibility of appeal—without resort to the death penalty.
– Addressing the role of specific units and chains of command implicated in unlawful killings and other abuses, in line with UN recommendations to tackle impunity and, where necessary, disband or fundamentally reform abusive structures.
– Ensuring that families of those killed or disappeared are heard in shaping justice processes, including reparations, memorialisation, and guarantees of non-repetition, rather than treating a single death sentence as a stand-in for their varied needs.
Re-examining the ICT’s mandate and design
– Reviewing, reforming, or replacing the current tribunal framework to align it with international standards, ensuring that any future prosecutions—whether for 1971 or 2024—are not overshadowed by doubts about independence and fairness.
What this moment signals for Bangladesh and its diaspora
The sentencing of Sheikh Hasina by a tribunal she helped build has become a symbol of a deeper dilemma: whether the tools of accountability in Bangladesh will serve the rule of law, or be perceived as rotating instruments of political retribution.
The UN’s fact-finding report and the tribunal’s verdict both affirm a core truth: the killings and abuses of July–August 2024 cannot be ignored. The question now is whether the search for justice will entrench capital punishment and contested institutions, or move toward a model that protects the rights and dignity of all—victims, defendants, and future generations—without resorting to execution.
For people in Bangladesh and in the diaspora, this moment is likely to remain a reference point in debates about authority, accountability, and the meaning of justice after mass violence. How it is handled will shape not only the legacy of Sheikh Hasina’s rule, but also the credibility of Bangladesh’s institutions in the years ahead.