Category Archives: Daily Summaries

24 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments, Chowdhury Defense Application for Police Protection

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Closing arguments
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Defense Counsel Application for Police Protection to and from the Tribunal

Tajul Islam, Defense Counsel of Gholam Azam filed an application seeking permission to meet with his client Gholam Azam. Additionally, the Defense concluded the closing arguments on factual issues. Arguments continued for 5 days and addressed Prosecution and Defense witnesses as well as Charge 5. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings until 27 March 2013, when Abdur Razzaq is scheduled to present the Defense arguments on legal issues and Charges 1 to 4.

In the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, senior Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena, filed an application seeking police protection for coming to the Tribunal during days when hartals or other political unrest present security concerns. He requested that his car be accompanied by full time uniformed police gunman. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing of the petition for tomorrow and adjourned the proceedings until then.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam- Defense Closing Arguments
Prosecution Witness 16 – The Investigating Officer
The Defense read out different paragraphs from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Prosecution witness 16. Mizanul Islam submitted that during the cross-examination the witness was asked whether Gholam Azam had a direct connection with the local Peace Committee but was only able to refer to Exhibit-57, the Daily Pakistan dated 16 April 1971. The Defense noted that the contents of Exhibit-57 do not answer the question. The article discusses the formation of a 21 member executive committee within the Peace Committee and states its purpose as bringing back normalcy at the direction of the Central Peace Committee. On cross-examination the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not find any direction or order bearing the signature of Gholam Azam. The witness also admitted that there was no resolution which designated Gholam Azam the power to cancel or suspend any local level Peace Committee. The Defense noted that the Investigating Officer was unable to specify who had authority within the Peace Committee to issue directions or orders to the local level committees. The Investigating Officer claimed that directions and orders from the Central Peace Committee were communicated to the local level Peace Committees by newspapers, television and radio broadcast. He further testified that the local level Peace Committees were bound to follow the directions. However, the Defense noted that the witness had admitted that he did not know the broadcasting range of Dhaka television stations and acknowledged that due to poor communication there was often a delay in orders reaching newspapers in remote areas such as Taknaf and Tetulia. The witness also admitted that he had no evidence as to whether the Daily Shangram or the Daily Paigam was distributed in Patuakhali (a remote area). Continue reading →

24 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman DW 5, Prosecution Closing Arguments

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman

The day’s proceedings started later than usual because the Defense witness scheduled to testify in Kamaruzzaman’s case was not initially allowed to enter the tribunal premises in a car. The Defense Counsel accompanying him was adamant that the witness would not get out to walk because of the prior incident in which a Defense witness was allegedly abducted outside the Tribunal. After the situation was resolved the Tribunal heard Defense witness 5 provide direct testimony and allowed the Prosecution to conduct their cross-examination.

After the witness’ testimony was concluded the Chief Prosecutor began their Closing Arguments in the case.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Testimony of Defense Witness 5
Mr Abdur Rahim, Defense witness 5, testified before the Tribunal. During his direct examination, the witness testified that he is the son of Late Didar Ali and is a permanent resident, living in Mymensingh District. He is an elderly businessman of the locality. He claimed to have been a freedom fighter during the Liberation War and the General Secretary of Shecchashebok Bahini  (Volunteer Forces) formed after the Liberation War. Mr. Rahim testified that he never heard Kamaruzzaman’s name referenced in connection to the Al-Badr or Rajakar forces in Mymensingh District.

Continue reading →

21 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings against Jamaat Leaders, Adjournment for Kamaruzzaman

21 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. Selim Uddin and Other Jamaat Leaders
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman

Prosecutor Mohammad Ali started the day’s submission expressing his deep sadness at the death of President Zillur Rahman, the Honorable President of Bangladesh. Stating that the country mourns at his departure, the prosecutor proposed that the court observes two minutes of silence in his honor. In response, the judges expressed their sadness and commented that all present in the courtroom mourn with the nation. However, they said that as an independent entity of the judiciary, it is not possible for them to observe the silence without some steps or instruction coming from the Honorable Chief Justice.

The court then called the contempt proceedings against Mr Selim Uddin and other Jamaat party leaders. Defense counsel for the politicians had filed applications Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam requesting the court to dispense of the requirement that they appear in person. The counsel submitted that all of them have highest regards for the court and is not being able to comply with the court’s order solely by reason of security issues. The court rejected the applications stating that the two Jamaat leaders who have not yet appeared are now fugitives and such submission will not dispense with the requirement of personal appearance. The Tribunal fixed the next hearing for 10 April 2013. 

Finally, the defense sought time to produce defense witness in Kamaruzzaman’s case claiming that the witness could not appear due to illness. The court fixed Sunday 24 March 2013 as the next date for hearing the witness. The Tribunal stated that if the Defense again fails to produce their witness they will begin hearing closing arguments.

20 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Adjournement in Kamaruzzaman and Mujahid, Alim Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman – Extension of Time for Production of DW
  2. Chief Prosecuor vs. Mujahid: Adjournment
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs Abdul Alim: Cross-Examination of PW 13

The case against Mujahid was listed for the hearing of the Defense review application and for the examination of the prosecution witness. However, the Defense counsel requested adjournment of court due to the death of one attorney’s mother. The Prosecution did not object to the same and the court adjourned the matter till Sunday, 24 March 2013.

In the Kamaruzzman case the Defense also sought additional time as the Defense witness could not be presented before the court. The Defense counsel said that they could not produce the witness because travel into Dhaka from Sherpur was not possible due to the hartals. The Tribunal adjourned the matter for one day and ordered that the witness be produced on 21 March 2013. At this point, the Tribunal expressed its dissatisfaction for the repeated requests for additional time from the D, particularly with regard to the timely production of Defense witnesses. The Defense argued often granted the Prosecution similar adjournments, and had even given 24 days of additional time for the production of PW-12. Thus they argued that there is an imbalance between the court’s attitudes toward the two parties and that the Defense were being prejudiced. The Tribunal rejected this argument and stated that because the onus to establish an independent case lies with the Prosecution and not the Defense, the Tribunal granted the Prosecution additional time. They said the Defense cannot be allowed to delay the proceeding by referring to such examples.

Finally, in the case Abdul Alim, the defense cross-examined PW-13. Prosecution witness 13 is the nephew of PW 2 Laily Begum and is the grand child of martyr Doctor Abul Kashem, who according to the Prosecution’s case was killed on 25July 1971 in Kuthibari at the instruction of Abdul Alim. The witness was examined by the prosecution on Sunday, 17 March 2013.

Continue reading →

20 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Defense Closing Arguments, Civilian Command Responsibility

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossain Sayedee – Two Defense Applications (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Closing Arguments on Civilian Superior Command Responsibility (Accused not Present)

On March 20, 2013 Defense counsel for Delwar Hossain Sayedee submitted two applications. The first was a request for bail in regard to two cases filed against Sayedee in the Pirojpur Sadar Police Station Case No 9(8)09 and Zianagar Police Station Case No 4(9)09. The second application requested certified or authenticated copies of the FIR, Charge Sheet, Statement of witnesses and other relevant documents related to these cases in Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and Zianogor Police Station. The Tribunal fixed 21 March 2013 to hear the applications.

In the Gholam Azam case the Tribunal heard Defense counsel Imran Siddiq’s response to the Prosecution’s submissions on the issue of whether a civilian can have superior command responsibility. Prosecutor Turin Afroz submitted arguments for the Prosecution on 18 March 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam:
The Defense argued that the doctrine of command responsibility as described under Section 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973 is not applicable to civilians.

Interpretation of Law and Intent of Legislation
In support of the Defense’s position, Imran Siddiq argued that the legislative intent behind the passage of the ICT Act 1973 and its subsequent amendments showed that command responsibility was only applicable to military or auxiliary forces. He submitted that when the section 3(1) of the ICT Act 1973 was amended in 2009 to add “individual or a group of individuals” to the court’s jurisdiction, Parliament omitted to amend section 4(2) which codifies the doctrine of superior responsibility or command responsibility. Therefore the Defense argued the Prosecution cannot rely on section 4(2) to claim that an “individual or group of individuals” are liable due to command responsibility. Imran Siddiq argued that the text of Section 4(2) clearly limits the doctrine’s application to commanders and superior officers of military and auxiliary forces, showing that it is not applicable to civilians. He emphasized that the use of the terms ‘commander or superior officer’ and ‘persons under his command or his subordinates’ in Section 4(2) support the Defense’s position. Additionally, the Defense cited to Section 134 and 135 of the Penal Code, the Army Act of 1952, Air Force Act of 1953, Navy Ordinance of 1961, Bangladesh Rifles Order of 1972, Battalion Ansar Act of 1995 and Armed Battalions Ordinance of 1976. Imran Siddiq noted that none of these Acts have used the term of “superior officer” or “commander” to describe the authority of a political party leader or a civilian.

Continue reading →