Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam: Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Defense continued their Closing Arguments, addressing Charge 3 for incitement and Charge 4 for complicity.

After the lunch break Senior Defense Counsel Abdur Razzak requested an additional working day in order to complete the Defense’s summing up. By mentioning “working day,” the Defense implied a non-hartal day. This week hartals have been called for Monday through Thursday.  The Defense does not attend the Tribunal during hartal days.

Charge 3:
Incitement to Commit Genocide
The Defense addressed each count of incitement contained within Charge 3. First, the Defense argued that none of Gholam Azam’s statements were designed to instigate or prompt others to attack or destroy members of any national, religious, ethnic or racial group. Considering the context of censorship surrounding news reports, the testimony of both Prosecution and Defense witnesses and submitted Exhibits, it is clear that none of  Gholam Azam’s statements, when interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning, were directed against members of the Hindu community, the Bengali civilian population or supporters of the Awami League. Secondly, the Defense argued that the Charge Framing Order does not adequately specify how Gholam Azam prompted, provoked or instigated criminal action, nor has the Prosecution brought any evidence on record to show that an identified perpetrator was so instigated, prompted or provoked. Thirdly, the Prosecution has made no attempt to establish that Gholam Azam had the required intention to destroy Hindus, members of the Awami League or the Bengali civilian population. Similarly, the Prosecution failed to prove that through his statements Gholam Azam intended to create genocidal intent amongst members his audience. Therefore the Defense stated that the Prosecution did not prove essential elements of the alleged crime.

Incitement to Commit Crimes Against Humanity
The Defense argued that the Prosecution failed to prove its case in alleging that Gholam Azam commited the crime of Incitement to commit Crimes Against Humanity as alleged in numerous counts under Charge 3. First, the Defense stated that Gholam Azam was charged under section 3(2)(f) which provides liability for “any other crimes under international law.” The Defense asserted that “Incitement to Commit Crimes Against Humanity” is not recognized as a crime under International law and therefore cannot be charged under Section 3(2)(f).

The Prosecution has Failed To Prove a Connection Between Gholam Azam’s Statements and Crimes Under Section 3(2) of the ICT Act
Additionally, the Defense argued that none of Gholam Azam’s statements can be said to instigate or prompt others to commit an offense under section 3(2) of the IC Act. When interpreted according to their ordinary meaning, Gholam Azam’s statements cannot be said to supported criminal action against the civilian population. No evidence has been produced by the Prosecution to show that Gholam Azam’s statements were directed against the ordinary unarmed civilian population of the region. In fact, it is apparent that Gholam Azam’s statements were made in the context of an armed conflict between the Liberation Forces and the Pakistani Army, advocating for upholding the sovereignty and unity of Pakistan.

Secondly, no attempt has been made by the Prosecution to establish any nexus between Gholam Azam’s statements and the offenses alleged to have been committed under section 3(2) of the Act. No evidence has been produced showing that Gholam Azam’s conduct substantially contributed to the commission of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity, by the Pakistani Army or its auxiliary forces. The Prosecution failed to present evidence in the form of witnesses or documents to show that identified members of the Pakistani Army and/or its auxiliary forces had heard or read Gholam Azam’s statements prior to committing offenses under section 3(2) of the ICT Act.

The Defense noted that the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not find evidence of any specific person committing atrocities because they heard or read Gholam Azam’s statements or speeches. The witness also admitted that he did not investigate into the underlying facts of the various Exhibited news reports. Therefore, the Defense argued there is no scope to determine whether the conduct of the Accused substantially contributed to the commission of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity. Prosecution witnesses 1, 2 and 3 made general statements regarding the commission of atrocities by the Pakistani Army, Peace Committees, Razakars and Al-Badr. However, none of them made any statement establishing a connection between Gholam Azam’s statements or actions and the offenses committed in the country.

Thirdly, the Defense stated even if one assumes that crimes under section 3(2) of the Act were committed following statements made by Gholam Azam, the charges of incitement have not been established in view of the Prosecution’s failure to prove that Gholam Azam had the required mens rea, or mental state. The Prosecution needed to show that he intended that the crime be committed or was aware of the substantial likelihood that a crime would be committed pursuant to the instigation. The Defense argued that Gholam Azam’s statements were made with a view to upholding the sovereignty of a united Pakistan and this cannot be equated to intending that a crime under section 3(2) be committed.

Count 1, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 36
The Defense then turned to the specifics of Count 1 of Charge 3. The Prosecution relied on Exhibit-36, a joint statement in which Gholam Azam expressed his belief that the patriotic citizens of East Pakistan would ‘destroy’ the Indian infiltrators and that the people of East Pakistan would never allow Indian infiltrators to interfere with the sovereignty of Pakistan. The Defense argued that there is no reference to ‘Hindus’, ‘Awami League’ or ‘Bengalis’ in the joint statement. There is no factual basis on which the Prosecution may claim that Gholam Azam was referring to any particular religious, political or ethnic group in his statement. Furthermore no Prosecution witness testified that by ‘Indian infiltrator’ Gholam Azam meant ‘Hindus’, ‘Awami League’ or ‘Bengalis.’ The Defense argued that there is no evidence on record to show that Gholam Azam was targeting a particular religious, political or ethnic group and that in actuality Gholam Azam was referring to India’s interference with the internal affairs of then Pakistan.

Additionally, the Charge Framing order alleges that the Accused used the word ‘deshpremik’ to refer to ‘Jamaat-e-Islami, Shanti Committee, Razakars, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams,’ but no evidence has been produced to support this claim. The Defense claimed that as the Peace Committees, Razakars, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams were formed later, Gholam Azam could not have been referring to these organizations in his statement of April 7, 1971. Finally, the Defense argued that incitement to destroy a political group is not part of Customary International Law and therefore should not be punishable under section 3(2)(f) of the Act of 1973.

Count 2, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit-38 and 54
In addition to the above submission, regarding count 2, Imran submitted  Prosecution has brought no evidence on record to show that the words ‘armed insurgent’ refers to any particular religious, political or ethnic group.

Count 3, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit-105
Regarding count 3, the Defense submitted that the press release of the Central Peace Committee dated 22 April 1971, was not issued by Gholam Azam and therefore he cannot be held responsible for its impact. No evidence has been presented to establish that by ‘anti-state elements’ and ‘miscreants,’ Gholam Azam was in fact referring to the unarmed civilian population of then East Pakistan. The Defense secondly argued that even if the press release was in fact directed against civilians, such a statement cannot be said to have instigated, prompted or provoked another to commit an offense of Crimes Against Humanity. During war the act of calling upon people to support and assist a particular side is not an offense under the 1973 Act. The Defense asserted that such statements and invitations are within the limits of legitimate political expression. They cannot be equated with statements encouraging the commission of atrocities against the civilian population.

Count 4, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit-481
Regarding Count 4, the Defense submitted that Exhibit 481 shows that Gholam Azam was present at a meeting of Jamaat-e-Islami on 2 May 1971, and that he addressed the party workers stressing the need for Islamic education and social justice. He also made statements that the two wings of Pakistan could be kept united only through Islamic ideology. The Defense argued that Gholam Azam’s statement, as reproduced in Exhibit 481, cannot be interpreted as provoking, prompting or instigating the commission of atrocities against members of the Hindu or Bengali community or the unarmed civilian population.

Count 5, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibits 2 and 60
Regarding count 5, the Defense submitted that the allegedly incriminating news report does not state that the Gholam Azam made a call for the destruction of the ‘traitors of Pakistan’ or ‘miscreants.’ It merely refers to a meeting which the Accused attended, in which such views were expressed. The Defense argued that the news report does not clearly state who made the alleged statements. Furthermore, the statements were neither ‘direct’ nor ‘public.’ Even assuming such statements were made by Gholam Azam, there is no proof that the terms ‘traitors of Pakistan’ and ‘miscreants’ referred to Hindus, Bengalis or the civilian population.

Count 6, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 169
Regarding count 6, the Defense stated that the Charge Framing Order alleged that Gholam Azam met leaders and followers in Jessore, Khulna and in some parts of Dhaka and made speeches calling upon all to assist the Pakistani Army, thereby inciting commission of various crimes against “Hindus, supporters of the Awami League, supporters of an independent Bangladesh and the unarmed population.” The Defense countered that the news report dated 22 May 1971 makes no reference to any speech delivered by Gholam Azam. The speeches were delivered by Major General Umrao Khan and Chowdhury Rahmat Ali. Furhtermore the statements were clearly directed against the Indian insurgents and armed groups who were engaged in acts of looting. The speeches did not direct action against the unarmed civilian population, nor against any religious, political or ethnic group.

Count no 7, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit-5
Regarding Count 7, the Defense argued that in an interview with the Daily Jasarat, it was alleged that Gholam Azam stated that the Awami League is a ‘self-interested’ and ‘fascist’ party. Imran submitted that such statements are mere criticisms of a political party and are not criminal.

Count 8, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 6
The Prosecution alleged that Gholam Azam incited others to commit crimes under Section 3(2) of the ICT Act through a statement urging all to resist the ‘miscreants’ and ‘anti-state elements,’ praising the Pakistani Army for saving Pakistan from destruction, and inviting all to cooperate with the authorities for the restoration of normalcy. The Defense again asserted that these statements were made with the goal of maintaining the unity and sovereignty of Pakistan, which is not a criminal act. Additionally, ther term by ‘miscreants’ and ‘anti-state elements’ were again used to refer to those involved in the armed struggle.

Count 9, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit  469
In Exhibit 469 Gholam Azam is shown to have made a statement calling for everyone to safeguard the unity of Pakistan. The Defense argued that such a statement in no way provoked, instigated or prompted the commission of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity.

Count 10, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 9
Exhibit 9 is a news report containing a mere analysis by Gholam Azam of Hindu-Muslim relations in the sub-continent. The Defense again submitted that no offense of incitement to commit genocide has been committed. They also argued that there is nothing in the news report to indicate that the Gholam Azam had prompted or provoked anyone to deport Hindus. There is no evidence on record, either in the form of witness testimony or documentary evidence, to establish that Hindus were deported as a result of Gholam Azam’s statements.

Count 11, Charge 3
Exhibit 10, 487
In Exhibit- 487, Gholam Azam and others made statements discussing the importance of Islamic education and the need for framing a Constitution based on Islamic ideology. The Defense submitted that there is nothing in these Exhibits to substantiate the allegations in the Charge Framing Order that Gholam Azam called for Jihad against non-muslims or that Gholam Azam made speeches inciting the elimination of opposing political and religious groups. They submitted that upon consideration of the statements made in the aforesaid Exhibits, it is clear that the statements were made with a view to protecting the integrity of Pakistan. The Defense again reiterated that supporting the cause of a united Pakistan is not an offense under the 1973 Act.

Count no 12, Charge 3
Exhibit 487
The Defense further argued that Gholam Azam’s statement calling for the defeat of the ‘miscreants’ and ‘secessionists,’ i.e., those involved in an armed struggle for and independent Bangladesh, is in no way the same as calling for the elimination of members of the Hindu, Bengali or unarmed civilian population.

Count 13, Charge 3
Exhibits 11, 64, 45
In Exhibit 11 Gholam Azam is hown to have made a statement calling upon the ordinary people to maintain constant communication with the loal Peace Committees and the establishment in order to remain vigilant against ‘miscreants’ and to resist ‘anti-state elements.’ The Defense reasoned that calling for vigilance against ‘miscreants’ cannot be equated to calling for the elimination of a religious, political or ethnic group.

Count no 14, Charge 3
Exhibit 12
The Defense argued that it is clear that the statements made by Gholam Azam in Exhibit 12 were made with the purpose of preserving and upholding the sovereignty of united Pakistan. They submitted that no statements were made calling for destruction of or attack on any particular group.

Count no 15, Charge 3
Exhibits 46, 108, 65
Again, the Defense submitted that the statements by Gholam Azam in Exhibits 46, 108 and 65 were meant to promote and maintain the sovereignty of Pakistan. The statement that enemies inside the country were far more dangerous than external enemies was not directed against any particular group or against the civilian population. In Exhibit 65 Gholam Azam also made a statement emphasizing the importance of identifying the rebels, i.e. ‘ghorey ghorey jeshob dushmon boshe ache.’ The Defense argued that such statements do not amount to incitment of destruction of any religious, political or ethnic group. Additionally, the Defense claimed that Gholam Azam’s statement in Exhibit 108, that misguided Bengalis who fail to understand that the demands of the Bengali Muslims would be fulfilled within the framework of a united Pakistan have no right to remain in the country and should leave for India, was directed against those involved in the armed struggle against the integrity of Pakistan. Again, no religious, political or ethnic group, was targeted, nor were such statements directed towards any unarmed member of the civilian population.

Count 16, Charge 3
Exhibit 109
The Defense argued that the statements contained in Exhibit 109 were clearly not directed against any particular group or against the unarmed civilian population.

Count no 17, Charge 3
Exhibit  67
In Exhibit 67, Gholam Azam made a statement that Jamaat members have lost their lives at the hands of miscreants for opposing the separatist movement. The Defense asserted that the term miscreants referred to those involved in the armed struggle against the sovereignty of Pakistan. A statement merely criticizing the Awami League for the political violence perpetrated by their leadership does not amount to a crime under the ICT Act of 1973.

Count no 18, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 14, 48, 68
The Prosecution produced Exhibits in which Gholam Azam stated that the damage caused by a group of separatists could not be undone by mere slogans. In exhibits 48, 68 and 112, Gholam Azam identifies the separatists as those who, in collusion with India, were carrying out arson, looting and other anti-state activities in then East Pakistan. The Defense submitted that there is nothing in the news report to justify the allegation that Gholam Azam incited others to engage in armed suppressive or criminal measures.

Count no 19, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 19, 71
The Defense argued that the context of the statements contained I these Exhibits shows that Gholam Azam was calling on the people to make war time sacrifices and oppose both internal and external armed enemies in order to uphold the integrity and sovereignty of a united Pakistan. Furthermore they argued that the statements are clearly not directed at instigating action by Jamaat, the Razakars, the Peace Committees, Al Badr, or Al- Shams, as alleged.

Count no 20, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 16
The Defense stated that the report does not indicate that Jamaat members joining the Razakar forces were committing atrocities against a particular religious, political or ethnic group, or against the unarmed civilian population. Furthermore the statement in question does not amount to incitement because urging supporters to free the country from the grasp of ultra nationalists was merely a call to check the dominance of certain powers within the political sphere, not a demand to attack or persecute.

Count 21, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 489
According to Exhibit 489, Gholam Azam and others made statements praising the sacrifice of Maulana Al Madani for the cause of Islam. Resolutions were also adopted condemning the killing of Maulana and branding the supporters of the rebels as enemies of Islam. The Defense argued that condemning rebels for murdering an innocent civilian is not an offense under the 1973 Act.

Count 22: Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 18
Exhibit 18 contains a statement made by Gholam Azam while addressing members of the Islami Chattro Shangho in which he claimed that the activists of the organization would be able to protect the integrity of Pakistan. The Defense again asserted that such statements do not amount to inciting the commission of crimes against humanity or genocide, and are not punishable under the ICT Act of 1973.

Count 23, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 19
The Defense claimed that the contents of the speech reproduced in Exhibit 19 showed that Gholam Azam neither condoned nor incited the commission of atrocities against a particular religious, political, or ethnic groups, nor against the unarmed civilian population. The Defense submitted that no evidence was produced to support the claim that the Razakar forces addressed by the Gholam Azam committed atrocities upon being inspired by Gholam Azam’s speech at the Razakar camp.

Count 24, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit-22
The Defense submitted that the statements contained in Exhibit-22 were clearly not directed towards any particular religious, political, or ethnic group, or the unarmed civilian population, rather such statements were made in support of the integrity and sovereignty of a united Pakistan.

Count 25, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 23
Exhibit 23 contains a statement by Gholam Azam in which he said that if they failed to defend the country, they would fail to protect their ideology. He also invited all to prepare themselves to make sacrifices to protect their homeland created on the basis of their ideology. The Defense argued that Gholam Azam’s speech was directed towards maintaining the integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan and did not incite his supporters to engage in “the selected torturing of a group, killing or forcing out of the country, men and women, Bengalis, Hindus, democratic and progressive political activists, persons from various professions,” in fact, no reference was made to any groups in the statement.

Count 26, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 28
In a statement contained in Exhibit 28, Gholam Azam demanded that all peace loving citizens, Peace Committee members, and Razakars should be equipped with modern arms and ammunition. Gholam Azam also stated that India was inclined to engage in full-scale war against Pakistan. The Defense argued that it was in the context of defense that Gholam Azam demanded that these groups be armed so as to be able to withstand the attack by India and defend the sovereignty of Pakistan. The Defense further noted that the statements were not directed against any particular religious, political, or ethnic group, or the unarmed civilian population.

Count 27, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 29
Exhibit 29 contains a statement in which Gholam Azam called upon the President of Pakistan to attack India in order to defend the integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan. The Defense stated that such statements do not amount to inciting commission of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity.

Count 28, Charge 3
Evidence: Exhibit 97
In the news report contained in Exhibit 97, Gholam Azam made a statement calling on the President to restore the confidence of the people of East Pakistan, transfer power to the people of East Pakistan and to address the injustice of the previous years. Gholam Azam also stated that it was the primary responsibility of the people to defend the integrity of the nation. The Defense submitted that it was in this context that Gholam Azam called upon the President to increase the numbers of Razakar forces so that they could resist the armed struggle of the freedom fighters and defend the integrity of the country.

Charge 4: Complicity
The Defense next addressed Charge 4 which alleges that Gholam Azam was complicit in the commission of crimes under Section 3(2) of the ICT Act of 1973. They asserted that in order to prove complicity in Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity the Prosecution must establish 1) conduct 2) aiding and abetting, instigating, procuring, assisting or encouraging the crime, 3) the completion of the crime of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity, 4) intent to or awareness that the conduct contributed to the commission of the crime of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity, and 5) that the conduct substantially contributed to or had a substantial effect on the completion of the crime of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity. The Defense cited the ICTR case of Semanza (Trial Chamber) May 15, 2003.

The Defense addressed each count (13) of the complicity within Charge 4. The arguments against the multiple counts were generally uniform. First, the Defense asserted that none of Gholam Azam’s statements can be validly interpreted to have aided, abetted, instigated, procured, assisted or encouraged attacks on members of any national, religious, ethnic or racial group. None of Gholam Azam’s statements or actions were directed against members of the Hindu community, Bengali people, supporters of the Awami League or the civilian population of Bangladesh. In fact, it is apparent that the Accused’s statements were directed against those who were engaged in an armed struggle.

Secondly, no evidence has been presented to establish that Gholam Azam’s conduct ‘substantially contributed’ to the commission Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity, by either the Pakistani Army or its auxiliary forces. No specific incident of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity, committed by the Army in a particular area of the country, has been shown to be the result of Gholam Azam’s statements or actions. The Prosecution failed to present witness testimony or documentary evidence that identifiesi members of the Pakistan Army and/or its auxiliary forces who heard or read Gholam Azam’s statements prior to committing specific offenses under section 3(2). Prosecution witnesses 1, 2 and 3 made general statements regarding the commission of atrocities by the Pakistani Army, Peace Committees, Razakars and Al-Badr. However, none of these witnesses made any statement connecting Gholam Azam’s statements or actions and the offenses committed in the country.

Thirdly, the Prosecution failed to present sufficient facts and evidence to establish that Gholam Azam had the requisite mens rea, or mental state, to be found guilty of complicity in Genocide. Equally, the Prosecution failed to produce evidence showing that Gholam Azam acted intentionally and with awareness that his conduct was contributing to the commission of Crimes Against Humanity, including all its material elements.

Count 1, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit 34
According to Exhibit 34, Gholam Azam met with General Tikka Khan as part of a twelve member delegation that proposed the creation of a citizen’s committee to assist in restoring normalcy and eliminating fear and anxiety from the minds of the people. The Defense submitted that Gholam Azam’s mere presence at the meeting cannot be said to amount to complicity in the commission of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity. Furthermore the Defense argued that the proposal of providing support to the Martial Law Administration in the restoration of normalcy can in no way be interpreted as an encouragement or instigation to the Pakistani army to attack members of the Hindu community or unarmed civilian population. Given the absence of a nexus between Gholam Azam and the local Peace Committees, the Accused cannot be held responsible for the atrocities, if any, committed by the local Peace Committees.

Count 2, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit 35, 53,100
Exhibits 35, 53, and 100 refer to a government press release issued by the Martial Law Administration that Gholam Azam and several other leaders met with General Tikka Khan separately on 6 April 1971. At the meeting an alleged agreement was reached pledging cooperation and support to the administration in order to restore normalcy. Gholam Azam however, denies ever meeting General Tikka Khan separately on 6 April 1971. The Investigating Officer admitted during cross-examination that he neither investigated the press release nor obtained a copy of the document issued by the Martial Law administration in 1971. The Defense argued that the authenticity of the news of Gholam Azam’s meeting with General Tikka Khan on 6 April 1971 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if Gholam Azam had met with the  General, the Defense argued that his alleged statement assuring full cooperation in the restoration of normalcy cannot be said to amount to encouragement or instigation for the commission of subsequent atrocities by the Pakistan Army.

Count 3: Charge 4
Exhibit 37
In Exhibit 37 Gholam Azam’s name is mentioned as one of the members of the Peace Committee. The document also states that local Peace Committees will be formed at union and mahalla levels throughout Greater Dhaka under the aegis of the Citizens Peace Committee. The Defense submitted that the decisions and resolutions, to which Gholam Azam was a party, were directed against Indian aggressors and not against members of the Hindu community or unarmed civilian population. The Defense also argued that the allegation that local Peace Committees aided and abetted in the commission of atrocities by the Pakistan Army is insufficient to warrant a charge of complicity against Gholam Azam. The Prosecution failed to show a nexus between Gholam Azam and the local Peace Committees. Additionally, there is no evidence on record to establish that the local Peace Committees committed atrocities as per the directions of the Central Peace Committee or its members.

Count 4, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibits 57, 47
The Prosecution additionally alleged that at the meeting it was decided that Peace Committees would be constituted at the district and mahakuma levels. A 21 member Working Committee was also formed of which Gholam Azam was allegedly a member. Exhibits 41 and 57 show that the purpose of the Peace Committees was the restoration of normalcy. The Defense argued submitted that being a member of an organization that aims to restore normalcy’ cannot be equated to encouraging or instigating the commission of atrocities by the Pakistani Army.

Count 5, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit 169
The Defense argued that Exhibit 169 clearly shows that Gholam Azam did not make any statements or speeches at the meeting reported in the aforementioned news report. The mere presence of Gholam Azam at the meeting does not amount to aiding and abetting, or instigating or procuring or assisting or encouraging commission of crimes against the Hindu community, the Bengali population, or unarmed civilian people. The Defense submitted that, even if Gholam Azam had made a statement praising the Pakistani Army for saving the country at a time of crisis, such a statement is not an act of complicity. The context in which the statement was made shows that the Pakistan Army was being praised for protecting the integrity and sovereignty of a united Pakistan.

Count 6, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibits 3,  42, 106, 61, 77
Exhibits 3, 42, 106, 61 and 77 show that Gholam Azam stated that it was not an appropriate time to transfer power because the National Assembly was not in existence anymore. Gholam Azam then stated that “miscreants” were still carrying out their destructive activities. He also stated that the situation could be controlled only by apprehending the true criminals. Such statements do not amount to instigating or encouraging the commission of Crimes Against Humanity or Genocide. The Defense submitted that there is nothing in the Exhibits to justify the allegation in the Charge Framing Order that Gholam Azam extended his support towards the nationwide criminal activities of the Pakistani Army and their illegal occupation of Bangladesh because he did not support the transfer of power. Furthermore, the Prosecution failed to present any evidence to support the allegation that Gholam Azam made statements on behalf of the Pakistani Army, claiming that the representatives of the country had been declared illegal.

Count 7, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit-4
Exhibit 4 shows that Gholam Azam made a demand for the additional supply of arms and ammunition to patriotic citizens of Pakistan to enable their resistance against the ‘miscreants.’ The Defense agued that the statement was not directed against members of the Hindu population or the unarmed Bengali civilian population.

Count 8, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit 6
In Exhibit 6, Gholam Azam stated that the “miscreants” were involved in destructive activities and that patriotic citizens should be armed for self-defense. The Defense again argued that such are not acts of complicity in the commission of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity. Gholam Azam’s statements were made in the context of the debate regarding the independence of East Pakistan. At the briefing, Gholam Azam stated that if a democratic system was in existence in Pakistan, the people of East Pakistan could have realized their demands through a democratic process. The defense submitted that Gholam Azam’s statements were made with the goal of maintaining the unity of Pakistan.

Count 9, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit 5/1, 44, 63
In these Exhibits Gholam Azam praised the Pakistan Army for destroying the separatist movement in East Pakistan and further stated that the disintegration of Pakistan could not have been avoided without the intervention of the Pakistani Army. The Defense argued that praising an Army for protecting a country from is not an act of complicity in crimes under Section 3(2) of the ICT Act.

Count 10, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit 6
In Exhibit 6, Gholam Azam called for banning the political parties which initiated and instigated the separatist movement. The Defense argued that such a statement is a political statement and cannot be said to instigate or encourage the commission of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity.

Count 11, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit  488
In Exhibit 488 Gholam Azam is shown to have made a statement calling upon the ordinary people to maintain constant communications with the Peace Committees and the establishment in order to remain vigilant against ‘miscreants’ and to resist ‘anti-state elements.’ The Defense argued that resistance against armed groups, as referred to by the term ‘anti-state elements,’ was clearly not a direction to attack any particular group.

Count 12, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit 83
Exhibit 83 refers to a resolution by the Central Council of Jamaat-e-Islami supporting the steps taken by the Pakistani government in quelling the armed rebellion of the Awami League, who they alleged were acting as agents of India. The Defense stated that the report makes no reference to Gholam Azam and it is unclear whether Gholam Azam was present at the meeting where the resolution was made. Even if Gholam Azam was present, his alleged expression of support for the Pakistani Government in putting down an armed rebellion can in no way be called an act of complicity in the commission of Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity. As an individual, Gholam Azam cannot be held responsible for a resolution passed by the Jamaat Central Council, particularly when there is no evidence that he was present at the said meeting of the Central Council.

Count 13, Charge 4
Evidence: Exhibit 13, 47, 111, 84
The Prosecution submitted Exhibits showing that Gholam Azam stated at a press briefing that the Pakistani Army had saved Pakistan from the ‘Mir Zafar’ rebels of Pakistan and the evil motives of India. Gholam Azam also stated that the people of East Pakistan will provide full support to the armed forces to destroy the ‘miscreants’ and the ‘infiltrators’. The Defense argued that the term ‘miscreants’ referred to those involved in the armed struggle and did not target any member of the Hindu or Bengali community or the unarmed civilian population.

Administrative Matters:
Today’s proceedings were not video recorded as they usually are.