Disputes & Public Law · Bangladesh · Historical legislation
Three features of the 2025 Tribunal amendment text deserve to be read closely and separately: a substituted three-week period, an asset-freezing or confiscation power, and a rule on technical evidence. This article confines itself to what the historical Ordinance actually stated.
The three-week textual substitution
The Ordinance amended section 9(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 by replacing the words “six weeks” with “three weeks”. The official text gives a direct substitution, not an extended code of procedure. Any historical account should therefore cite the precise provision and avoid adding procedural detail that the Ordinance itself does not contain. Whether and how a time period applies now requires the live legal framework, not a description of a repealed ordinance.
The asset-order provision
The 2025 text inserted a new section 11(9). In the language of the Ordinance, a Tribunal could order freezing or confiscation of an accused person’s assets to prevent evasion or flight, realise compensation under section 20A and ensure justice. The cross-reference to section 20A appears in the provision; the Ordinance does not, in this text, supply a full explanation of that section. A disciplined historical reading should not turn that cross-reference into a broader claim not established by the source.
Technical rules of evidence
Section 19 gained a new subsection (5) under the Ordinance. It stated that, notwithstanding anything in that section, the Tribunal would not be bound by technical rules of evidence and could adopt and apply expeditious and non-technical procedures. The point is distinct from the separate amendment concerning complaints and reports. Describing those provisions separately helps retain the structure of the legislative text and avoids merging evidence, procedure and case-initiation questions.
A repeal-aware conclusion
The official record identifies the instrument as repealed by the International Crimes (Tribunals) (Amendment) Act, 2026, Act No. XIII of 2026. This 2025 source may have relevance to the period in which it operated or to historical research. It must not be presented as an independent statement of the current law on assets, timelines or evidence.
How to use a historical instrument responsibly
First fix the relevant date and issue. Next identify the exact provision and version of the source being cited. Finally keep the historical text separate from the current legal framework, including any current legislation, rules, notifications or other materials that may govern a live matter. The 2025 instrument can be useful evidence of a historic legislative position; it is not a substitute for a current-law review.
TRW & Co works across regulatory, disputes and institutional matters. Explore our practice areas, read further Perspectives, or contact the firm for advice on a particular matter.
Frequently asked questions
What asset power did the 2025 text include?
It authorised the Tribunal to order freezing or confiscation of an accused person’s assets for the stated purposes in section 11(9). Read the official record
Did the Ordinance itself define all technical-evidence rules?
No. The historical amendment stated that the Tribunal would not be bound by technical rules of evidence and could use expeditious and non-technical procedures. Read the official record
Does this article state the current tribunal procedure?
No. The official portal lists the 2025 Ordinance as repealed by the 2026 Act. Read the official record
Primary materials
The provisions discussed in this insight are drawn from the official Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division record. Readers should use the primary source and current authoritative materials for any present-day legal question.
This publication is general legal information. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon without advice tailored to the facts, jurisdiction and time period concerned.