Monthly Archives: May 2013

16 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Final Closing Arguments, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

The publication of this post was delayed as we were waiting to obtain certain documents from the Prosecution. Please excuse the inconvenience.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecution vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Defense application and Conclusion of Prosecution Closing Arguments, Accused Present 
  2. Chief Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Defense Application and Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer

The Tribunal heard the last of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman  case. Prosecutor Tureen Afroz addressed remaining legal issues including the value of hearsay evidence, inconsistencies and the old evidence rule, and the doctrine of Superior Responsibility under Section 4(2). Two other Prosecutors made additional closing remarks before the Tribunal allowed the Defense to present a brief rebuttal. The case was then closed and the Tribunal officially took it into consideration awaiting verdict.

In the Mujahid case the Tribunal heard a Prosecution application seeking limitation of the number of Defense witnesses allowed. The Defense previously submitted a list of 1500 names listed as possible defense witnesses. After Disposing of the Application and limiting the Defense to three witnesses, the Tribunal then returned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Defense Application for Opportunity to Make Statement
At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the defense submitted an application on behalf of the accused under Section 17(1) and (2) of the ICT Act seeking permission for the Accused to make a statement before the Tribunal. Section 17(1) provides that the Accused “shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charge mage against him.” Section 17(2) allows the Accused to conduct his own Defense or to have the assistance of counsel.

The Prosecution opposed the application and stated that such a statement could only be allowed while the Tribunal is hearing witnesses. However, Closing Arguments are taking place and there is no such right at this stage of proceedings.

The Judges quickly rejected the application and agreed with the Prosecution’s interpretation of the Statute.  Continue reading →

29 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Prosecution Witness 31

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Prosecution witness 31

Today the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of the Prosecution witness 31, Shujit Mohazon. The Tribunal then heard the beginning of the Defense’s cross-examination. They then adjourned the case until tomorrow as per the request of the Defense, who stated that they needed additional time to prepare questions regarding the factual issues because the Prosecution had only informed them this morning that the witness would appear today.

Prosecution Witness 31
The Prosecution called Shujit Mohazon, son and brother to two alleged victims, as prosecution witness 31. Shujit Mohazon testified in support of Charge no 6. Charge 6 was alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i) and  3(2)(3 )(ii); and deportation as a Crime Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973.

Examination-in Chief
Shujit Mozajon testified that he is the son of Jogesh Chandra Mohazon and Harilata Mohazon. He was 11years old in 1971. He stated that on 13 April1971 he along with his father, Jogesh Chandra and brother, Ranjit Mohazon, were sitting on their veranda when they heard the sounds of crowds yelling the slogan ‘Pakistan Zindabad.’ He testified that the Pakistani army and some Bengalis arrived and entered their house. Being afraid, Shujit said that he hid himself next to the Gola (a barrel for storing rice) in their kitchen. From his hidden position he saw his father and brother be taken to the bank of Khitish Chandra’s pond. Continue reading →

28 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Charge Framing Order to be Issued Against Chowdhury Moinuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury Moinuddin – Scheduling of Charge Framing Order
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan – Scheduling of Charge Framing Order

 Tribunal 2 was briefly in session today. They scheduled Thursday, 2 May 2013, for issuing the Charge Framing Orders against Chowdhury Moinuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan. Both are charged with the killing of Bangladeshi intellectuals during the eve of Bangladesh’s victory on 16 December 1971. The Prosecution submitted the proposed Formal Charge to the Tribunal on 25 April 2013. The 16 Charges allege the Accused killed at least 18 intellectuals between 10 December and 15 December 1971, amounting to Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.

AIJI is in the process of obtaining copies of the Charge Framing Orders and will post them on our website once they are available.

28 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Cross-Examination of PW 5

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami – Cross Examination of PW 5

Today the Defense in the Nizami case concluded their cross-examination of Prosecution witness 5, Nazim Uddin Khattab. The Tribunal then adjourned the case  until 30 April 2013.

Nazim Uddin Khattab testified in support of Charge no 4 which alleges that Motiur Rahman Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act and was complicit in murder, rape, looting and destruction of property in the village of Karajma. The Charges are framed as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(h), section 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1) and section 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Cross-examination
During the examination-in-chief, Nazim Uddin Khattab had testified that he received training as a freedome fighter for the Liberation War and regarding the UPR camp. Defense Counsel Mizanul Islam asked him who was in charge of the camp. Khattab replied Major Ibrahim and Habildar Ali Akbar were responsible. The Defense suggested that UPR was established at the request of Abu Sayed after the formation of the Razakar and Al-Badr forces, as well as the Peace Committee. Khattab denied the suggestion and testified that before the camp was set up in the area before the formation of the Razakar and Al-Badr forces or the Peace Committee. The Defense asked how long after the UPR camp was established the Peace Committee, Razakar f and Al-Badr forces were formed. Khattab was unable to provide a timeline. The Defense again asked him when he first heard about the Peace Committee . Khattab replied that he first heard about the three groups before 19 April 1971. Previously during the Proesecuiton’s examination-in-chief Khattab had claimed that the Union Board Chairman Khoda Box was Chairman of the Peace Committee and a leader of Muslim League. The Defense suggested that Major Ibrahim arrested Khoda Box. Khattab denied the suggestion.

During the examination-in-chief Khattab had also testified regarding an individual named Rofikun Nabi Bublu, .stating that he had gone into hiding after the Liberation War. In response to the Defense’s questions he said that he did not know whether Rofikun’s father, Shiraj, was a doctor but noted that his title was doctor. Khattab denied the Defense’s suggestion that Shiraj practiced in Bera as a doctor. Continue reading →