Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following case:
Prosecutor Rana Das Gupta opened the closing arguments on behalf of the Prosecution in the case against Abdul Alim. He mainly confined himself to discussing evidentiary aspects of the case, including referring to the specific pieces of documentary evidence. Prosecutor Tureen Afroz is expected to make additional submissions on the key legal arguments of the Prosecution.
Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following case:
Tribunal 2 recorded the cross examination of DW-3, the son of the accused Abdul Alim. Mr. Rana Das Gupta conducted cross-examination and posed various questions to the witness pertaining to matters regarding which he testified the previous day.
Cross-Examination
During the cross-examination, the witness replied to a question from the Bench by informing them that his father had surrendered to the authorities on 28 February 1972, following the government proclamation under the Collaborators’ Act of 1972. He said that a case was filed against his father under the aforesaid Act on 9 March 1972, but that he was subsequently acquitted due to inadequate evidence against him. He further testified that another case had been filed against the accused after the withdrawal of the first case, but the police gave the final report in his favor.
The witness denied the suggestion of Prosecution counsel that Alim had taken part in the provincial by-election in 1971 and had been elected uncontested. He did acknowledge that his father had contested the 1970 election as a candidate of Convention Muslim League, but had lost. In response to further questioning, the witness said that he was not aware that his father had been the President of Jaipurhat Union Board before 1971 and the vice-chairman of Bogra District Council in 1971.
The conclusion of cross-examination of DW-3 marked the end of witness examination. The tribunal scheduled September 4, 2013 for the Prosecution closing arguments to commence.
Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:
Tribunal 2 was in session with just two Justices presiding: Md Mozibur Rahman Miah and Md Shahinur Islam. Chairman Mr. Justice Obaidul Hassan remain on leave.
In the Alim case, the Tribunal recorded the testimony of Mr Sazzad bin Alim, the son of accused Abdul Alim. He gave testimony as DW-3. Mr Ahsanul Haque Hena conducted the examination-in-chief, which lasted for three and half hours. Mr. Rana Das Gupta formally commenced the cross-examination, but did not finish. Cross examination is expected to continue September 3, 2013.
The case against Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin was adjourned for the day after the Prosecution counsel failed to present the prosecution witness who was supposed to give testimony before the Tribunal.
We are pleased to present our fourth Special report on the third verdict issued by Tribunal 2.
Special Issue # 4: Legal Conclusions from Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
This special report provides a detailed summary of the legal conclusions made by the International Crimes Tribunal in its fourth verdict, the Judgment of Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman. The verdict was issued on 9 May 2013. All seven Charges leveled against Kamaruzzaman alleged direct involvement in Crimes Against Humanity, or in the alternative, complicity in Crimes Against Humanity. The Tribunal found Kamaruzzaman guilty of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity for Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. He was acquitted of Charges 5 and 6. This special report focuses on the legal conclusions within the Judgment, particularly on the Tribunal’s decisions concerning evidentiary standards, the definition and elements of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity, and the doctrine of Command Responsibility. For more information on the procedural history of the case and the factual findings of the Tribunal please refer to our initial report on the case, Special Issue #2: Kamaruzzaman Verdict. The legal conclusions expressed in this report are a summary and restatement of those found in the Tribunal’s verdict, for the benefit of those interested in following the work of the ICT. The interpretations of law described herein do not necessarily reflect the institutional views of the Asian International Justice Initiative or its researchers.
The Bangladesh Trial Observer 