Category Archives: contempt proceedings

1-5 September 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summaries

From 1 to 5 September 2013 our observer was on leave. These summaries have been compiled from media coverage of the proceedings:

Summary of 1st September
In case of Motiur Rahman Nizami, the Defense conducted the cross-examination of Johurul Haque, Prosecution witness 18. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 2 September 2013.

Summary of 2nd September
On 22 August Tribunal heard a petition filed by the Prosecution requesting the Tribunal to issue an order of contempt under section 11(4) of the ICT Act 1973 and Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure against Human Rights Watch Board of Directors, Executive Director of Asia Division Brad Adams, and Associate of Asia Division Storm Tiv. Continue reading →

12 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain
  3. Contempt Proceedgings against Defense counsel Fakhrul Islam

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, Defense Counsel placed the closing arguments for the fifth day. After hearing his submission Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow and asked Defense to conclude the closing arguments by tomorrow, 13 August 2013.

In the Mobarak Hossain case today was fixed for recording the testimony of Prosecution witness 7. However, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 20 August 2013.

Regarding the hearing of the contempt charges against Fakhrul Islam, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, the Tribunal fixed 26 September 2013 for hearing the matter.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
The Defense argued that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was not charged under section 3(2)(f) of the ICT Act 1973 and therefore international law is not applicable in the case. Though the ICT Act 1973 states that the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 and Evidence Act 1872 are not applicable, the Defense asserted that the provisions of both Acts had been followed. Regarding hearsay testimonies, the Defense cited a High Court division of Bangladesh case, holding that hearsay is only admissible when the person who heard the statement and the person from whom it was heard both testify before the court. Hearsay is not acceptable when the source does not confirm it. Referring 38 DLR, the Defense submitted that when there is a decision of HC of Bangladesh the decision of other courts will not be applied.

The Defense then began their arguments on Charges 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. Regarding Charge 1, the Defense noted that two witnesses gave statements to the Investigation Officer but did were not produced before the Tribunal. The only Prosecution witness who testified in support of this charge is Debabrata Sarkar, Prosecution witness 18, who claimed that he heard about the incidence from Shunil. The Defense claimed that Debabrata failed to provide information about Sunil, his home, or his treatment after the incident. Furthermore, the Defense asserted that Debabrata first testified that he was 7 years old at that time of alleged incident, but later contradicted himself saying that he was only 5 years old. Debabrata’s testimony was not collaborated by any other witness or documentary evidence. The Defense noted that the alleged incident was not even described in a book.

Regarding Charge 2, the Defense argued that one Promila also gave a statement to the Investigation Officer, but did not appear before the Tribunal. They submitted that Shubol, Prosecution witness 29, did not provide testimony incriminating Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and was not declared a hostile witness. The Defense discredited the testimony of Nirmal Chandra Sharma, Prosecution witness 6, stating that he is a beneficiary of the present government and was appointed by the present government as APP, a post that he continues to hold. During examination-in-chief, Nirmal testified that they took shelter in the house of Ali Chowdhury and with the help of Danu uncle crossed the Rangamati road. The Defense noted that the Investigation Officer did not interview Danu about the incident. During cross-examination Nirmal testified that Danu is now deceased. However, the Defense referred to an affidavit and the National ID card of Danu and claimed that Danu is still alive. In the affidavit Danu said that he found out about Nirmal Chandra Sharma’s testimony from media coverage. Danu denied Sharma’s version of events. Citing to an Indian High Court case the Defense submitted that Danu’s affidavit carries the same weight as that of witness testimony before the Tribunal.

They Defense argued that during cross-examination Nirmal testified that Bimol knew about the incident and that after Pakistani Army shot Nirmal’s brother Bimol came to the scene of the crime. However, the Defense noted that Bimol was not produced before the Tribunal to testify. During cross examination Nirmal testified that Bimol arrived at the scene 1 hour after the shooting. Shubol, prosecution witness 29, also testified that after 1 hour he arrived at the scene and found the corpses of Poncha Bala, Shunil, Dulal, Joti Lal, as well as Makhon Lal and Joyonta who were injured. The Defense questioned how both could have arrived at the same time without seeing each other. The Defense concluded that the testimony of Shubol, Prosecution witness 29, contradicted the testimony of Nirmal Chandra Sharma, Prosecution witness 6. The Defense also submitted that Sirajul Islam alias Siru Bengali, Prosecution witness 3, testified that he heard about the incident of Maddhya Gohira from Captain Karim, but never visited the alleged areas. Sirajul Islam alias Siru Bengali testified that Captain Karim died in the Liberation War. The Defense submitted that Prosecution failed to show any documents proving that Captain Karim was a real person who lived in 1971.

After the lunch break, the Defense submitted their arguments regarding Charge 4. They asserted that 12 witnesses gave statements to the Investigation Officer, however only three witnesses were produced before the Tribunal to testify. They argued that Aurunangso Bimol Chowdhury, Prosecution witness 12, could not remember whether the Investigation Officer asked him any questions during the investigation. The Defense noted that they declined to cross-examine this witness because he did not implicate Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in any way. They also noted that Asish Chowdhury, Prosecution witness 13, gave hearsay testimony. The Defense argued that Asish is interested in the outcome of the case because his employer Profullo Ranjon Singh is Prosecution witness 5. The Defense argued  he is not credible because that he is not an independent witness. On cross-examination Asish testified that he heard about the incident from Aurunangso Bimol Chowdhury, Prosecution witness 12. However, the Defense again noted that Aurunangso did not incriminate Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and so Asish could not rely on him to provide incriminating information.The Defense also submitted that Dijoy Krishno Chowdhury, Prosecution witness 34, did not incriminate Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.

Regarding the out-of-court witness statement of Josna Bala, admitted under Section 19(2) of the ICT ACT, the Defense noted that on 16 April 2012 Josna Bala gave a statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Chittagong under section 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code stating that the Investigation Officer for the ICT case  asked her some questions but did not read her statement back to her to confirm its accuracy. She further said that she was threatened to give testimony.

Regarding charge 5, Defense submitted that Onil Boron Dhar, Prosecution witness 22, filed a case on 5 April 1972 (Exhibit 32/4) before the Rawzan police station in which Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was one of the 16 accused. The Defense submitted that after filing the case the complainant did not take any further steps. The case was not pursued and Onil did not file a ‘Naraji’ application. The Defense further submitted that Onil’s application was not collaborated by anyone. The Defense stated that they had already voiced their arguments regarding the testimony of Badol Biswas under 19(2).

Regarding Charge 7, Defense submitted that only Poritosh Kumar Palit, Prosecution witness 28, provided supporting testimony and his testimony was not collaborated by anyone. The Defense submitted that Poritosh claimed himself to be an eye witness but admitted that he had never seen Salauddin Qader Chowdhury before 1971. The Defense questioned how he is able to recognize Salauddin Qader Chowdhury now. Poritosh testified that when Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and the Pakistani Army came to their place he hid himself in a bush. During cross-examination he testified that that there were flowers in the bush which they used to worship in the temple. The Defense argued that Hindus do not use flowers from this bush to worship. The Defense also emphasized that Poritosh could not say in which language Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was speaking with Pakistani Army. They questioned how he could claim that he heard Salauddin Qader Chowdhury say ‘that person is dangerous, kill him.’ The Defense noted that in official documents it is alleged that Salauddin used the English word ‘dangerous,’ but made the rest of the statement in Bangla. The Defense questioned how the Pakistani Army would have understood the meaning of this statement.

Regarding Charge 8, the Defense submitted that Prosecution witness 20, Sheikh Morshed Anwar, claimed that the Pakistani Army had abducted his father and brother while they were returning from Raozan in front of Hathazari intersection which is beside the bazaar. He testified that he had heard that after checking the vehicle the Pakistani army was going to let them go but suddenly Salauddin Quader Chowdhury along with his associates arrived and took Anwar’s father and brother out of the car and took them to the nearby army camp. During cross-examination Anwar testified that the nearby Army camp was 150 /200 yards away from the main road on Rangamati road. The Defense submitted that Prosecution witness 35, Kamal Uddin, testified that Hathazari Army camp was in Maduna Ghat in 1971 which is about 80/ 90 kilometers away from the Hathhazari town. The Defense argued that it is evident from the testimony of Kamal that there was no army camp at the Hathazari intersection or in the adjacent area. The Defense submitted that during cross-examination, Prosecution witness 17 (who testified in-camera) testified that the car was a Toyota starlet. However the Defense referred to document showing that the Toyota starlet did not yet exist in 1973. The Defense submitted that the Prosecution witness testified that after the incident they took shelter in a relatives house and the mother and brother of Prosecution witness 17 went to Goods Hill seeking the release of Sheikh Mozaffar and Sheikh Alamgir. He claimed that while there they spoke with Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. The Defense questioned why the mother and brother and relative of Prosecution witness 17 were not brought before the Tribunal to testify about their own experience.

Finally, the Defense noted that Prosecution witness 20, Sheikh Morshed Anwar, gave hearsay testimony. During his examination in chief the witness testified that his elder brother Jahangir wrote a book about the killing of their father Sheikh Mozaffar and brother Sheikh Alamgir. The witness exhibited all these materials before the Tribunal but the Prosecution did not produce Jahangir himself. The Defense argued that the reason for this was that Jahangir did not say anything in his writings about the presence of Prosecution witness 17.

22 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Abdus Sobhan Pre Trial Proceedings, Contempt Proceedings against Human Rights Watch

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial Proceedings against Abdus Sobhan
  2. Contempt Proceedings against Human Rights Watch

On 19 August 2013, Prosecution in the case against Abdus Sobhan filed an application requesting permission to interrogate the suspect in the safe home under Rule 16(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The Defense submitted a written objection against the application. Today the Tribunal heard arguments from both sides regarding the application. The Prosecution submitted that the investigation is in its final stage but asserted that for proper and effective investigation the Investigation Officer is required to interrogate the accused. The Prosecution further argued that for total verification, interrogation in the safe house is necessary.

Continue reading →

18 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal Limited Coverage

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Investigation of Zahid Hossain Khokon
  2. Contempt Proceedings – The Economist: Adam Roberts and Others
  3. Investigation of ATM Azharul Islam
  4. Investigation of Mir Qasem Ali
  5. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowhdury

Today the Tribunal 1 issued a warrant for the arrest of Zahid Hossain Khokon after taking cognizance of the charges brought against him. July 30 is scheduled for the hearing of the charges.

The Tribunal then addressed ongoing contempt proceedings against Adam Roberts as the South Asian Bureau Chief of the Economist. On 6 December 2012, the former chairman of the Tribunal announced that he had been called by a person from the Economist and asked for verification regarding alleged skype conversations with foreign legal expert and activist Ahmed Ziauddin. Subsequently the Tribunal issued an order for the Economist to show cause for their ‘interference with the ongoing trial and violating the privacy of a judge.’ On 25 March 2013, Mustafizur Rahman submitted a written reply on behalf of Economist. Today, 18 July 2013, Tribunal heard arguments from both Roberts’ representative and the Prosecution. They fixed 27 August for passing the Tribunal’s order on the matter.

The Prosecution submitted the Formal Charge against ATM Azharul Islam to the Office of the Registrar and informed the Tribunal. The Tribunal set 24 July for the decision of taking cognizance of charges.

Today was fixed for the charge hearing against Mir Qasem Ali. However, the Defense sought six weeks time for additional preparation. The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for 25 July.

In the Chowdhury case the cross-examination of the Defense Witness 3, Qayyum Reza Chowdhury, was also scheduled. However the Defense requested an adjournment. The Tribunal allowed the prayer and fixed 21 July for cross-examination of the witness.

5 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 10, Chowdhury PW 41, Islam Contempt Proceeding

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  3. Contempt Proceedings against Fakhrul Islam

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Defense completed the cross-examination of Tofazzal Hossain, Prosecution Witness 10, who testified in support of charge no 15. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 9 June 2013. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of the Investigation officer, Md Nurul Islam, Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 6 June 2013.

The Tribunal also fixed 12 August as the date for the next hearing on the potential contempt proceeding against Fakhrul Islam, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
Cross Examination of PW 10
The Defense continued to cross-examine Prosecution witness 10 about the incident of 17 November 1971. The Defense asked the witness what time the alleged incident took place, where the witness was when it occurred, and how far away he was from the alleged location of the incident. The witness replied that on November 17 at about 01:10 am, freedom fighters attacked the Razakar camp at Sathia Pailot School, and that he was in the adjacent area of the CO office, which is now the Union Council, and was 100-150 yards away from the school.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that on 7 December 1971, while freedom fighters were gathered for a meeting at the police station beside the Pailot School camp, they were attacked. He stated that  at that time they were unarmed. The Defense previously asked the witness where the freedom fighters were based between 17 November and 7 December. The witness answered that they were occupying the police station beside the Sathia Pailot School. The Defense claimed that the freedom fighters who took possession of the police station were armed. The witness then admitted that.

The Defense asked the witness about the incident of 7 December 1971: specifically whether anyone other than him was injured, how many people were gathered there, how many rounds of bullets were fired, and whether the witness had personally seen any Razakar members. The witness answered that other than him, no one was injured on that day. The witness testified that 150 or 200 people were gathered at the time of the incident, but could not say how many rounds of bullet were fired.

The Defense asked the witness about the head of the local Peace Committee. The witness testified that he heard that Jobbar is the President of the Peace Committee. Previously in answer to a question, the witness had replied that he heard that the freedom fighters’ commander Mukul took the 14 Razakars detained after the operation of 17 November to Sahjadpur on boats. The Defense alleged that Jobbar, whom the witness identified as President of Peace Committee, was the father of a freedom fighter commander named Mukul. The witness denied that suggestion, but said that the freedom fighter Mokbul Hossen Mukul was the son of the Peace Committee President Jobbar. The witness did not clarify whether there were two freedom fighters with the name Mukul, or only one. The witness testified that Jobbar was an activist in the Muslim League.

The Defense asked the witness whether he had read any newspaper between 1971 and 1975 which stated that in 1971 Nizami had attended a program or given a speech in Pabna. The witness replied that he had heard that Nizami gave speeches in different meetings, but claimed he had not seen this information in a newspaper because lived in remote areas. The Defense then asked the witness numerous questions to demonstrate that the witness did not reside in remote areas throughout this entire period.  The Defense claimed that in the last part of August 1971 freedom fighters detained Nizami and took him to the Chor areas. The witness answered that he had not heard this. The Defense claimed that the witness, when he came to Dhaka to testify before the Tribunal, was provided with a copy of the interview which he had given to the Investigation Officer. The witness admitted this. The Defense stated that the witness came from his home with the intention to testify against Nizami, and that his identification of the Accused was meaningless given there is only one person in the dock who could be the defendant. The witness agreed with this. The Defense claimed that a Razakar named Mahtab resided in the witness’s house in 1971. The witness claimed that he could not remember such a person. The Defense alleged that the witness was falsely claiming not to have any memory of Mahtab. The witness denied the allegation.

The Defense claimed that the witness, in his initial interview with the Investigation Officer, did not provide key details which he later testified to at trial. In particular, the Defense claimed that the witness did not claim that he and Nizami were classmates in Boalmari Madrassa; that in May 1971, the school was closed to set up a Razakar camp at Sathia Pailot High School; or that the witness observed the inauguration program from a distance and learned about the decisions of the meeting from attendees. The Defense also claimed that the witness, in his initial interview, did not recount the alleged incident of 7 December during which unarmed freedom fighters were allegedly attacked at the police station beside the Pailot School, or that the witness was shot in his left eye and became unconscious.  The Defense claimed that the witness likewise did not say that the followers of Nizami, Abdus Sobhan and Ishaq attacked the local Hindu community and looted their houses, and that the wife of Shunil Joardar was raped in her husband’s presence and then committed suicide out of shame. The witness denied all of these allegations.

The Defense claimed that the incidents of 17 November and 7 December 1971 did not take place, and that the witness collected his salary regularly from his school in person. The witness denied these claims. The Defense claimed that the son of the witness received a job with BTV upon the recommendation of Abu Sayed during the tenure of the last Awami League government. The witness admitted that his son received a job, but denied that it was on the recommendation of Abu Sayed. The Defense alleged that the witness received his job in Upozilla Counsil Primary School on the condition that he testify against Nizami. The witness replied that this was not true.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Cross Examination of PW 41
The Defense asked the witness about different exhibits, including Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 36, and 39. The Defense claimed that all of the newspaper headings had been altered by computer. The Defense claimed that the witness, during the investigation, did not search for the name of the reporter who collected the information and did not search for information about who was arrested alongside Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. The Defense claimed that the report is not original and is a modified scanned copy altered using Adobe Illustrator. The witness denied that. The witness testified that he did not scan or compose the newspapers, and the person who did these things is not a witness in this case. Regarding Exhibit-15, Defense claimed that the witness did not investigate to find the name of the original reporters, and that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury’s name was added by modification of the scanned copy.

 The Defense asked the witness about the source of Exhibit 10. The witness answered that the source was PPI, but did not clarify what the abbreviation means. The Defense claimed that the first line of the report is not clear and that the report does not contain the name of the Accused. The witness replied that the report discusses the son of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. Defense asked the witness about whether, following receipt of the report, he searched for the driver’s name, address, driving license, or other record of the driver’s death. The witness replied that he asked Siraj Uddin, Kazi Nurul Afsar, ANM Mahbub, and Fazlul Huq Bhuiyan about these things, but did not get any information. The Defense asked the witness whether he searched any local Chittagong newspaper for this information. The witness answered that he went to the offices of different local newspapers but did not receive the original as  copies of every issue of the newspapers are not available in the local newspaper offices. The Defense asked the witness who the editor of the Azadi newspaper was at the time of publication, when the witness went to the local office, and whom the witness spoke with while there. They aimed to cast doubt by indicating that the witness did not actually go to the office. The Defense asked the witness whether any case was filed regarding the death of the driver and injury of the Accused. The witness answered that he did not investigate that matter. The witness denied that the news was manipulated in bad faith.

Regarding Exhibit-36, the Defense claimed that Kawsar Sheikh was not the Assistant Librarian when the witness seized the reports. The witness replied that he wrote down what they said regarding their posts. The Defense claimed that the witness seized the Exhibits from Mobarak, and gave the main copies under Mobarak’s custody. The Defense asked the witness whether any requisition was served to make Mobarak appear as a witness. The witness answered that he did not serve any such requisition. The Defense claimed that all the paper cuttings and the seizure list are paper transactions and have been faked. Witness replied that this is not true. The Defense claimed that Exhibit 39 is also a paper transaction and fake and that all of the seized documents have been fabricated. The witness also denied that allegation. The Defense noted that Exhibits 6 through 23 do not contain the name of the Accused. The Defense asked the witness about the profession of the Accused. The witness replied that before 26 March, the Accused was a student, and that from 26 March to 20 September the Accused was involved in the commission of crimes against humanity.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Fakhrul Islam
On 30 December 2012, Fakhul Islam, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, filed a petition seeking an order clarifying that the Tribunal judges were not party to any of the Skype conversations that formed the controversy resulting in the resignation of former Chairman of Tribunal 1, Nizamul Hoq. On 3 January 2013, in order to avoid contempt proceedings, Ahsanul Huq Hena, another defense counsel for Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, prayed that the Tribunal consider the petition as ‘not pressed’ and offered an unconditional apology. On 14 January 2013, the Tribunal issued a notice asking Fakhul Islam, Defense counsel of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, why contempt proceedings should not be issued against him. Today, 5 June 2013, the Tribunal fixed 12 August as the date for the next hearing.