Hamood ur Rehman Commission Report: A Farce of Mistakes

Much has been said about the Hamood ur Rehman Commission report, but the fact is that this report lacks credibility. Allow me to explain briefly.
The commission was not set up to investigate the causes of the tragedy; it was primarily tasked with determining the circumstances surrounding the surrender of the Eastern Command. The question arises: why was the commission limited to only examining the circumstances and events related to the surrender? Why wasn’t the tragedy fully reviewed?
There were at least three key figures involved in this tragedy: Yahya Khan, Bhutto, and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. While the commission conducted a thorough investigation into one of these figures, why didn’t it address the roles of the other two?
Pakistan’s Eastern Command was in India’s custody, and without waiting for its  return, the commission completed the hearing in its absence, failing to consider its position before releasing the report. Was this true justice, or was it driven by a political necessity that influenced the outcome?
Although a formal procedure was followed after the return of the prisoners, and a supplementary report was later issued based on their statements, by that time, the primary objectives of the interim report had already been achieved.
The commission was focused on matters of war and surrender, comprised of five judges, with only one advisor who held the rank of General. Did these honorable judges have the necessary military training to adjudicate on issues of surrender without hearing from all relevant parties?
Taking a general view of the tragedy, the honorable judges of the commission offered lecture-like suggestions regarding the army’s intervention in the country’s history. However, Chief Justice Hamudur Rahman did not clarify who justified these martial laws or which institution created the need for them.
While the commission was highly critical of Yahya Khan, it failed to mention that when Yahya was given power unlawfully, the chief justice at that time was none other than Hamudur Rahman himself, who chose to remain silent.
The commission discussed democracy and the constitution in a traditional manner, but did not point out that when Yahya Khan issued the Legal Framework Order (LFO) in violation of the constitution, he was also the chief justice. Despite this violation, he did not deliver a judgment against Yahya. Even when Yahya Khan took away the judiciary’s power to interpret the constitution and assumed it for himself, Chief Justice Hamudur Rahman remained silent.
Should we believe that the Chief Justice discovered this flaw when Yahya had become weak and Bhutto’s star was rising?