Category Archives: Tribunal 1

18 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Testifies as DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Contempt Proceedings vs. Adam Roberts of the Economist and Others                                    

Today the Tribunal had scheduled the hearing of Adam Roberts’ reply to the Tribunal’s show cause notice, issued on 6 December 2012 in relation to the Economist’s publication of portions of alleged Skype conversations between the former Tribunal 1 Chairman and foreign lawyer Ahmed Ziauddin. On 25 March 2013, Mustafizur Rahman submitted a reply on behalf of Economist. Today, 18 June 2013 counsel on behalf of Roberts sought additional time. The Tribunal granted the prayer and schedule 18 July for the hearing.

The Tribunal then heard ongoing testimony from Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, who took the stand as Defense witness 1. Continue reading →

17 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Testifies as DW 1

17 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury –Defendant testimony as DW 1

Today, 17 June 2013, The Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury requested review of the Tribunal’s order from 13 June, which limited the number of allowed Defense witnesses to 5. The Defense also requested time for privileged communication with the Defendant. As the Chairman was on leave, the Tribunal decided it would hear the application for review upon his return. The Tribunal granted the application for privileged communication and passed an order that two Defense Counsels be allowed to meet with Chowdhury on 18 June 2013 from 10 am to 11am at the cell in the Tribunal.

Thereafter, Chowdhury himself took the stand as a Defense witness 1. He testified that he was born in Chittagong in 1949. He provided extensive detail about his family background, including his own family, his siblings, cousins, uncles, father and his father’s education. The witness then described the Charge Framing Order as a formal proposition. The witness testified that the first paragraph of the order states that the two nation theory, and the proposal of an independent Bangladesh, is the primary cause of all communal strife in Bangladesh. The witness testified that this is an ill-disguised proposal for the dissolution of the communally demarcated territory of Bangladesh as enshrined in Article 2 of the constitution of Bangladesh. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 18 June 2013.

Courtroom Dynamics and Administrative Notes
The accused placed his testimony without oath because the Prosecution objected to the oath. The Defendant made his statement in English. This presented logistical problems as the court reporter is not fluent in English and only records witness testimony in Bangla. Therefore it was difficult for the court reporter to keep up with the witness’ pace, and the proceedings were considerably slowed. Additionally ongoing arguments between the Defense and Prosecution over Chowdhury’s statement, use of various phrases, and the spelling of certain English words took up a great deal of time. The Prosecution objected that the witness’ testimony was not relevant to the charges. The Tribunal instructed the witness to be concise in his testimony.

16 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mobarak Hossain PW 4, AKM Yusuf Defense Applications, Nizami Adjournment

 Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain – Cross-examination of PW 4
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami– adjournment due to illness of witness
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf – Rescheduling of Charge Hearing, Defense Applications

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Defense conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 4, Khadem Hossain Khan. In the case against Motiur Rahman Nizami the Prosecution was scheduled to examine Prosecution witness 11, but was granted an adjournment by the Tribunal due to the witness’ illness. Today was also fixed for hearing the official charges against AKM Yusuf. However the Defense filed two applications; one seeking two weeks adjournment for further preparation and another for permission to have privileged communication with the Defendant. The Tribunal granted the application for privileged communications, allowing the Defense to meet with AKM Yusuf on 22 June. Tribunal also accepted the request for adjournment and scheduled the next proceedings of the case for 1 July 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain
Cross-Examination of  PW 4
Khadem Hossain Khan, a victim during the war of independence, underwent cross-examination by the Defense. During the Prosecution’s examination-in-chief, Khadem Hossain Khan had testified that after the country was “liberated” on 16 December 1971, freedom fighters and Awami League supporters rescued him by breaking the lock of the jail. The Defense asked the witness when he was first taken to jail and when he as released. The witness replied that he was taken to the jail on 26 November 1971 and released on the 7th or 8th of December after the Brahmanbaria area was liberated. He said that Brahmanbaria was liberated on 6 December 1971. The Defense asked the witness numerous questions about the jail authority, jailor, jail super, whether the witness was presented before any magistrate before he was taken to the jail, and whether there was any doctor at the jail during his intention, all with the intention of casting doubt on his testimony. The Defense asked the witness about the number of the wards in the jail. Witness replied that he did not now how many wards there were in total, but that his ward number was number three. The Defense asked the witness to recall the name of three persons who were with him in the same ward and still alive. The witness replied that all those who were detained with him are now deceased. Continue reading →

13 June 2013 ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross Examination PW 41, Abdus Sobhan Pre-Trial

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Investigation of Abdus Sobhan

In the Chowdhury case, the Defense concluded the cross-examination of Investigation Officer Md Nurul Islam, Prosecution witness 41. The Tribunal also heard an application submitted by Prosecution requesting the Tribunal to reject the Defense’s list of 1153 witnesses. The Prosecution argued that the list did not comply with Rule 51A (1) and did not specify the particulars of which witnesses would testify as to which charges, or on which points the Defense intended to examine the witness. The Prosecution also argued that list repeated the name of certain witnesses. The Defense countered that the list is short considering the political career of the Accused. They stated that while some names are similar, they are not repetitions.

The Tribunal verbally granted the Prosecution’s application with modification. They limited the Defense to 5 witnesses. The Defense objected, stating that there are 23 charges against the accused and that 41 prosecution witnesses testified against CHowdhury. They argued that being limited to 5 witnesses would prejudice their case. The Tribunal did not respond to their objection.The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until Monday, 17 July 2013, even if, Defense prayed for more time.

In the ongoing investigation of Abdus Sobhan, the Prosecution submitted their progress report and sought additional time. Tribunal allowed the prayer and adjourned the proceedings of the case until 14 July 2013.  Continue reading →

12 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

 In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued its cross-examination of Md Nurul Islam, the Investigation Officer, Prosecution witness 41. Defense questioned the witness to numerous contradictions found between the witness statements that he recorded and the testimony of those witnesses before the Tribunal.  The Defense implied that many key accusations made by the witnesses were not made originally to the Investigation Officer and that they were later supplied by the Prosecution. Today the Defense highlighted contradictions betwee the statements of Prosecution witnesses 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow.