Category Archives: Project Overview

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 23

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary –

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. the Economist – Reply from Respondent
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Hearing of Request for Police Escort, Prosecution Witness 23

Today Mustafizur Rahman, counsel for the named respondents in the contempt proceedings against the Economist, submitted their reply and the Tribunal fixed 24 April 2013 for a hearing. The South Asian Bureau Chief of the Economist and the Chief Editor of the London based weekly were named in contempt proceedings that the Tribunal initiated on 6 December 2012. The Tribunal issued a notice asking them to show cause why action for interference with the ongoing trials and violating the privacy of a judge in conjunction with the publication of alleged skype conversations between the former Tribunal 1 Chairman and foreign lawyer Ahmed Ziauddin.

Today the Tribunal also heard arguments from Ahsanul Huq Hena, Senior Defense Counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, in support of his application for police protection coming to the Tribunal during hartal (strike) days. The advocate submitted that he represents Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Mobarak Hossain alias Mobarak Ali, and Abdul Alim. Hena stated that he is does not belong to any political party and comes to court in a professional context. He further submitted that on his way to the Tribunal he has been followed and threatened in offensive language by people outside the court. Because he resides far away from the Tribunal and has to cross several areas to come to the Tribunal, Hena stated that it is unsafe and troublesome for him to attend proceedings during hartal days.

Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon agreed with the Defense application and stated that if the provisions of law (he did not make it clear which law) allowed Prosecution counsel to receive police protection then Defense Counsel should be similarly assisted. The Tribunal verbally allowed the Defense application and asked Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon to communicate the Tribunal’s approval to the police. The Tribunal also scheduled 27 March as the date for passing its order regarding this application.

After hearing the Defense application, the Tribunal then turned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 23, Bano Gopal Dash. After the completion of the cross-examination the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 27 March 2013.

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.

7 March 2013: ICT 1 and 2 Daily Summary – Brief Summary due to Hartal

A Hartal was announced for today, 7 March 2013. Due to security concerns our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days. We have compiled the following brief summary from media coverage and communication with the Defense and Prosecution.


7 March 2013
Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
A Junior Defense counsel for Gholam Azam sought adjournment. Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum objected to the request and requested that the Tribunal fix the date for pronouncing the verdict without continuing with the Defense’s Closing Arguments. The Tribunal accepted the Defense’s request and adjourned the Gholam Azam case until March 10, 2013.


7 March 2013
[We are compiling Tribunal 2’s Summary and will post it here as soon as it is complete.]

17 Jan 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary – Sayedee Prosecution Closing Arguments

The Tribunal heard the following case:

Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossein Sayedee

On behalf of the Prosecution, Haider Ali submitted the Prosecution’s final arguments, addressing Charges 17-19.

Haider Ali began by reading out the  Daily Jonokontho dated 5 March 2001 (Ext-08) regarding incident at Sajuddin Poshari and the killing of Fayzur Rahman (charge 5) and Aziz; the looting of shops in Bipod Shaha, Modon Shaha and Makhon Shaha; and general allegations of looting, burning houses, torturing people, forced conversion of Hindus, and killing of Hindus. He read out Exhibit -48,  the Daily Azad , dated 3 February 1972 relating to Charge 18. He read out Exhibit-12, the Daily Shamakal, and  Exhibit-46, a newspaper dated 17 July 2010; as well as Exhibit  47 dated 14 April 2001.

He then focused on the individual charges and the prosecution’s evidence in support of each one. Continue reading

8 January 2013: Daily Sumary Tribunal 1- Golam Azam

The Tribunal heard matters in the following case:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Golam Azam – Defence Case-in-Chief

Proceedings focused solely on the Defense’s exhibit of documents that they will rely on for their case:

The defense used the witness to exhibit many books, newspapers and documents, including a photocopy of ‘What happened in 1971 and who were Razakars’; ‘Bangladesh: Unfinished Revolution (Part-2)’; ‘Pakistan Crisis in Leadership’; ‘The Re-trial of East Pakistan’ a book written by General Niazi; ‘The Pakistan Army 1966-71’ written by Mejor General Shawkat Reza (Retired) (Chaper-4,5; page 101-131); ‘Pakistan Crisis in Leadership’ written by Mejor General Fazal Muhim Khan (Retired)(page 115-131; 159-173); ‘Dhaka’s Dibbled’ written by Syed Alamder Raja (page 61-65); ’71: in the eyes of Pakistani’ written by Professor Muntasir Mamun and Mohiuddin Ahmed (page 311-360); ‘Internal Strife and External Intervention’ written by Hasan Azkari Rizvi (page 114-271); ‘The deliberate dib able’ written by Dr Shafder Mahmud (page 55-199); ‘Bangladesh: Victim of Black Propaganda Intrigue and Indian Hegemony’ written by Azammal Hossain (page 32-52); ‘Crisis of East Pakistan’ written by Shoforraz Hossain Mirza (page 59-90); ‘Unprotected Independence is the subordination’ written by Mejor Jalil and edited by Atique Helal; and ‘Detained in an Indian Jail’ written by Muhammad Alamgir (page 11-31).

While Mizanul Islam was exhibiting ‘Documents of the Liberation War in Bangladesh,’ a book written by Hakkani, Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum raised objection alleging that  it is a banned book.

Mizanul Islam exhibited photocopies of two books written by Professor Golam Azam: ‘Aggression of India and Bengali Muslims’; ‘Palashi to Bangladesh’; ‘The Question about the Existence of Independent Bangladesh’.

Mizanul Islam on behalf of Azmi exhibited photocopies of the daily statements about the activity of Razakars in Modoni, Lokhiganj, Chollisha, Rahurhat, Amtola, Jahangirpur in July, 1971. He exhibited the daily statements of Razakars in Netrokona in August and September, 1971.

He exhibited a lot of documents, including the certified copy of a gazette dated 07-09-1971, regarding Razakar Ordinance 1971; Syllabus and Documents on Razakars and their Training and Organizations dated 16-12-1971; a photocopy of a letter written by the Director of Razakars to a Assistant Director of the Razakars; a photocopy of documents about the verification of the Razakars G.S.O-2 dated 08-09-1971 and G.S.O-3 dated 09-09-1971; a list of the armed Razakar dated 22-09-1971; a list of selected Razakar commanders; the Complaint Register No-1 dated July 21, 2010, search list and evidential documents Volume-3,4,5 and 6 from the Investigation Authority, International Criminal Tribunal Bangladesh; Photocopies of the interviews of the Golam Azam published in different medias; Documents of the India-Bangladesh relation (1971-2002) including the speeches of former Prime minister Indira Gandi; Statement of Lokshova dated 27-03-1971; Speech of the Mr Muhammad Ali in the General Assembly of the United Nations  on September 27, 1971 as found in the Bangladesh Document volume-2;  and a whitepaper of the crisis in East Pakistan (page 45-53) as found in Pakistan Horizon, journal volume-xxv no 1, 1972 (page 21).

The Defense then exhibited numberous photocopies newspapers dated from 2008 to 2011 about banning Jamaat-e-Islami, punishment and trial and accused of the war criminals, statements of different Awami-League leaders published in different newspapers, and statements of the current Prime minister about the Razakars as published in Daily Amer Desh dated 22-04-10. While Mizanul Islam was exhibiting different newspapers Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum raised question regarding the relevancy of these documents.

1 January 2013: Detailed Daily Summary – Chowdhury Case

Case: Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Today Defense counsel of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury presented further arguments. They filed four applications including one asking the Tribunal for an order clarifying that its judges were not party to any of the skype conversations between the former Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin. Other applications included initiating contempt proceedings against Law Minister for influencing the proceedings; summoning the former Chairman of the Tribunal-1 to testify; and seeking the removal of the Chief Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum.

Before the lunch break, Defense Counsel Fakhrul started to place his arguments for an order clarifying that its judges were not party to any of the skype conversations. Fakhrul said that the law minister misused his power. Attorney General argued that application was filed to malign the court and prayed to reject the applications. Tribunal fixed Thursday for hearing Salauddin’s remaining application seeking removal of conducting prosecutor Zead-al-Malum. This application upset the judges who then told Fakhrul that his submissions were not respectful to the judges. The judges then asked him to move on to his other applications.

Lack of Decorum in the Court
During arguments in the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, the Accused, shouted and swore at the Prosecution and Attorney General for raising objections to his motions while his lawyer Barrister Fakhrul Islam was presenting the submissions. Later on an Assistant Attorney General and a junior Defense lawyer shouted at each other and openly threatened each other with serious bodily harm in open court. They came very close to each other in the aisle of the court and there seemed to be a real risk of a physical altercation. Eventually both sides were calmed by the elderly Chief Prosecutor Ghulam Arieff Tipoo and the Chief Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq. Both sides apologized. The Accused stated he would not have acted in such a way but for the provocation. There have been previous incidents of disruptions caused by Defendant Chawdhury.

Continue reading