Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:
- Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain – Cross-examination of PW 4
- Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami– adjournment due to illness of witness
- Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf – Rescheduling of Charge Hearing, Defense Applications
In the Mobarak Hossain case the Defense conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 4, Khadem Hossain Khan. In the case against Motiur Rahman Nizami the Prosecution was scheduled to examine Prosecution witness 11, but was granted an adjournment by the Tribunal due to the witness’ illness. Today was also fixed for hearing the official charges against AKM Yusuf. However the Defense filed two applications; one seeking two weeks adjournment for further preparation and another for permission to have privileged communication with the Defendant. The Tribunal granted the application for privileged communications, allowing the Defense to meet with AKM Yusuf on 22 June. Tribunal also accepted the request for adjournment and scheduled the next proceedings of the case for 1 July 2013.
Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain
Cross-Examination of PW 4
Khadem Hossain Khan, a victim during the war of independence, underwent cross-examination by the Defense. During the Prosecution’s examination-in-chief, Khadem Hossain Khan had testified that after the country was “liberated” on 16 December 1971, freedom fighters and Awami League supporters rescued him by breaking the lock of the jail. The Defense asked the witness when he was first taken to jail and when he as released. The witness replied that he was taken to the jail on 26 November 1971 and released on the 7th or 8th of December after the Brahmanbaria area was liberated. He said that Brahmanbaria was liberated on 6 December 1971. The Defense asked the witness numerous questions about the jail authority, jailor, jail super, whether the witness was presented before any magistrate before he was taken to the jail, and whether there was any doctor at the jail during his intention, all with the intention of casting doubt on his testimony. The Defense asked the witness about the number of the wards in the jail. Witness replied that he did not now how many wards there were in total, but that his ward number was number three. The Defense asked the witness to recall the name of three persons who were with him in the same ward and still alive. The witness replied that all those who were detained with him are now deceased.
Khan also testified during his examination-in-chief that after 26 March 1971 his shop was looted. The Defense asked the witness about the owner of the land where the shop was located, the precise location of the shop and whether he had a trade license. They also asked whether any other shop in that area was looted at that time. Witness replied that his shop and other shops owned by Hindus were looted. The Defense asked the witness to mention the name of three Hindus whose shops were looted at that time and who are still alive. The witness claimed that no others are still living. The Defense alleged that the witness actually did not have a shop in 1971. The witness denied the allegation.
The witness previously testified that on the 24 or 25 November 1971, when he exited the Radio and Television institute in Brahmabaria Station, he was captured by 5 or 6 armed Razakars led by Mobarak Hossain. The Defense asked the witness about the location of his alleged detention. The Defense claimed that the site was on the Station Road and that there were shops on that road. The witness admitted that. The Defense then asked the witness to name three persons who witnessed the incident from Station Road while the witness was being caught. The witness replied that no witnesses are still living. The Defense then asked the witness whether he had ever filed a case regarding his alleged torture. The Witness said he had not. The Defense alleged that the witness was not actually taken to the jail or tortured. The witness denied the allegation.
The witness previously testified that he went to India in the middle of May and returned to Mojlishpur, Brahmanbaria after 21 days of training. The Defense asked the witness whether he had any documents to show that he actually went to India and returned. The witness replied that he had given those documents to the Investigation Officer.
Khan previously claimed that on 24 or 25 November, hearing that Principal Ismail Hossen was ill, he went to the Radio and Television institute located at Brahmabaria Station to meet with him. The Defense asked the witness whether he was accompanied by others on his visit. The witness replied that he went alone. The Defense asked the witness from whom he learned of the Hossen’s illness. He replied that Vima, brother of Musa Razakar, had informed him. The Defense asked the witness if either Vima or Musa is still living. The witness replied that they are not.
The Defense then asked a number of questions about the book titled ‘ Muktijuddhe Brahmanbaria,’ written by Joidul Hossen. The Defense claimed that during Khan’s interview with Joidul Hossen he did not mention the name of Mobarak Hossain. The witness denied the allegation. The Defense also questioned why the book does not describe the alleged incident which the witness has testified about before the Tribunal. The witness replied that he did not read the book.
The Defense alleged that during his initial interview with the Investigation Officer the witness did claim that he had visited Principal Ismail Hossen at the Radio and Television institute and find him in better condition. They also claimed that the witness did not tell the Investigation Officer that Mobarak told the Pakistan Army in Urdu that the witness was a dangerous man, a freedom fighter and technician, set several mines and destroyed several bridges. The Defense further alleged that the witness did not tell the Investigation Officer about his alleged torture, or about other detainees being taken from the jail by truck to be killed. They argued that the entire story of the alleged incident has been fabricated. The witness denied all these allegations and replied that he told the Investigation Officer the entire story truthfully.
The Defense alleged that the witness was lying about seeing Siraz and Malek in the jail about his alleged detention, torture, and rescue. They also claimed that the witness has been influenced by Abdul Hamid and is providing false for monitary benefit. The witness denied the allegations.