At a time when violent criminals and sex offenders of every hue imaginable were on a rampage and committing crimes as though undeterred by the long arm of the law, the public had every reason to doubt if the brutal rape and murder of the eight-year-old schoolgirl Ramisa Akter of Pallabi would ever see justice. Against such a backdrop, it was a moment of deliverance for the public outraged at the dastardly crime, when the Judge of the Dhaka Metropolitan Children's Violence Suppression Tribunal on Sunday, June 7 handed down death sentence to the perpetrators of the appalling crime that had shocked the nation. Aggrieved that, of late, murderers and violent sex offenders have been getting away with their crimes with impunity, the public was gradually losing faith in the law-enforcement and the judicial systems. So, last Sunday's court verdict was an instance of reassurance that, after all, the justice system not only works, but it can deliver fast.
No doubt, it has set a precedent for expeditious trial procedure as well as justice. The conviction and death sentences for the offender Sohel Rana and his abettor wife Swapna Akter have established a new benchmark for conducting trial and delivery of justice in Bangladesh. Obviously, the case procedure was fast-tracked due to the nationwide outcry against the ultimate kind of brutality that the little girl was subjected to. So, it is hardly surprising that the process of justice could be speeded up bypassing years of typical judicial bottlenecks. Expeditious justice in child rape and murder cases is legally mandated, but systemic challenges prevent it from becoming the standard. While high-profile, government-monitored cases like Ramisa Akter's moved swiftly, endemic issues like delayed investigation reports often stall similar cases across the nation. Under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, for instance, the legal deadline for concluding a trial is 180 days.
But in reality, a massive shortage of tribunals and an overwhelming backlog of cases mean most trials drag on far longer. However, when there is direct government oversight as in the present case, state agencies including police, prosecution and judiciary coordinate and cooperate to quicken the processes of investigation, witness testimonies and trial. But under normal circumstances, failure to submit investigation reports on time repeatedly delays trial initiation. Also, presenting major witnesses to court quickly is highly difficult without structured victim and witness protection programmes. Legal experts from human rights organisations have noted that stringent legal timeframes cannot be consistently met without doubling the number of tribunals and modernising forensic labs. While recent high-profile verdicts demonstrate that the system is capable of rapid justice, structural overhauls and increased resources are necessary to replicate this speed for all cases.
Though the trial conclusion was unprecedented in Ramisa's case, some legal experts' view that the true test of this precedent lies in the higher court. For even prosecution of some cases that provoked nationwide outcries in the past could not be completed quickly. Despite the swift trial in the present case, some women and child rights bodies have rightly pointed to broader systemic issues in Bangladesh. Since acts of sexual violence against children have been rising unabated, it reflects serious weaknesses in the criminal justice system. In fact, it lacks child-sensitive investigation and support mechanism. That lacunae needs to be addressed. The conviction rate for these cases remains low and the overall system often takes an average of over six years to conclude trials outside of high-profile speeded up cases. While the verdict sends a strong deterrent message for crimes against children, whether it sets a permanent precedent for systemic, everyday justice will depend on how quickly the higher court handles the mandatory death references and appeals. Even so, it is believed Ramisa's verdict could set the tone for justice in Bangladesh.
