7 November 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mir Quasem Ali, Order transferring case back to ICT-1 for review; AKM Yusuf, PW-3

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mir Quasem Ali
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf

Tribunal 2 passed an order today, sending the case of Mir Quasem Ali back to Tribunal 1 for disposal of an application filed on behalf of the Defense seeking review of the Charge Framing Order. The Charge Framing Order had been passed by Tribunal 1 on 5 September, 2013. The case was later transferred by Tribunal 1, propio motu, to Tribunal 2 on 30 September 2013. It appeared that a copy of the review application was never received by Tribunal 2 with the case records sent to them from Tribunal 1. Defense stressed that they had indeed filed the application on 17 September 2013, and the Prosecution acknowledged receipt of a copy of the same. Accordingly, the judges of Tribunal 2 were of the opinion that, since the Charge Framing Order had been passed by Tribunal 1, the review petition challenging the Charge Framing Order should also be heard and discharged by the same court. Accordingly, ICT-2 resolved to send the case records back to ICT-1. The case records will be transferred to ICT-1, exclusively for the purpose of reviewing the application.  The case will thereafter be sent back to Tribunal 2 for the commencement of trial.

Having settled the matter of the review application, ICT-2 recorded the cross-examination of PW-3 in the case against AKM Yusuf. Learned defense counsel Mr. Syed Mizanur Rahman conducted the cross-examination. Previously, on 6 November, the examination-in-chief of the witness had been recorded, predominantly focusing on the death of the witness’ father, as alleged in Charge 12. On cross-examination, Defense counsel focused on attacking the credibility of the witness and outlining the inconsistencies between his testimony and what he previously stated to the IO. The defense counsel also suggested that AKM Yusuf was not involved in the alleged offences and that the witness did not know and could not have known that the perpetrators were acting upon instructions of the Accused.

The Tribunal adjourned proceedings till 10 November 2013.