I think the main problem with Quader Mollah execution was not merely the outside pressure. Rather the problem from the very beginning was that the whole trial process was flawed.
I regret that I was fool enough to not follow David Bergman's blog on Bangladesh war crimes trial at first.
I always found it difficult to understand as to why would the international media care about the Bangladesh war crimes trial. Yes I understand they were against the death penalty but why would they even give a hoot about Bangladesh's internal matters? Again, they could run stories on the trial considering it was a big enough event but criticizing a trial which was supposedly of the internal standard?
That is because as Bergman says the entire trial process and the hanging of Mollah was 'filmsy.'
The witness who was brought to the court hadn't even seen Abdul Quader Mollah. She said someone else told her that Quader Mollah killed her family!
It goes without saying that when a person is executed based on hearsay then something is horribly wrong.
Which is exactly what The Economist opines in a blog published on December 13th.
There could be many other reasons why the trial process should have done justice to its name.
For one thing, this trial was by and large the most significant trial in the history of Bangladeshi people. Hence, it absolutely needed to end well.