A Bangladesh war crimes tribunal hasaccused the British magazine The Economist of hacking the computer of itspresiding judge to record conversations and read emails he exchanged with alawyer.
The magazine did not directly address the charges, but saidit was in possession of conversations and documents that raised seriousquestions about the workings of the tribunal.
The tribunal is trying 10 opposition politicians on chargesof arson, rape and other atrocities committed during the country's 1971 war ofindependence from Pakistan.
Bangladesh says that during the war, Pakistani troops, aidedby their local collaborators, killed 3 million people and raped about 200,000women.
International human rights groups have called for fair andimpartial proceedings and raised questions about how the tribunal is beingconducted.
New York-based Human Rights Watch has complained about flawsin the tribunal and expressed concern about a police raid on defense lawyersand the disappearance of a witness at the courthouse gates who had reportedlybeen preparing to testify for the defense.
In an order passed last week, the tribunal accused TheEconomist of computer hacking and asked it to explain how it got emails andheard Skype conversations between Presiding Judge Mohammed Nizamul Huq andAhmed Ziauddin, a lawyer of Bangladeshi origin living in Brussels, Belgium.
The order was issued to Adam Roberts, South Asia bureauchief of the magazine, and Rob Gifford, its Asia specialist, the tribunal saidin a statement.
It accused the magazine of "interfering into the workof the tribunal and violating the privacy of its presiding judge."
The tribunal threatened to bring contempt charges againstthe pair unless they give a satisfactory reply within three weeks.
In an article published Saturday, The Economist said it hasheard 17 hours of recorded telephone conversations and seen over 230 emailsbetween Huq and Ziauddin.
"These emails, if genuine, would indeed raise questionsabout the working of the court and we are bound to investigate them as fully aswe can," the article said.
The Economist rejected the tribunal's demand that the emailsand recorded conversations be returned to it without being published.
"This material is confidential and we are bound by lawand the British press's Code of Conduct not to reveal such information exceptin matters of the most serious public interest. We did not solicit thematerial, nor pay for it, nor commit ourselves to publish it," it said.
But the tribunal said the materials were obtained illegallyand accused the magazine of calling the judge for comment, adding thatinterviewing a sitting judge is illegal and tantamount to contempt. UnderBangladesh law, a contempt conviction carries up to six months in jail.
Most of those on trial belong to the Islamic Jamaat-e-Islamiparty, which in 1971 campaigned against Bangladesh's war of separation fromPakistan. The party stands accused of supporting or in some cases taking partin atrocities committed by Pakistani troops. If convicted the defendants couldbe hanged.