Category Archives: Trial of Mir Qasem Ali

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.

26 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mir Qasem Ali Cognizance of Charges, Nizami PW 9, CHowdhury, PW 41,

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. The following summary has been compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and the Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Mir Qasem Ali
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury  

On 26 May 2013, the Tribunal took Cognizance of the charges against Mir Qasem Ali and fixed June 27 for hearing arguments for and against framing the order.

In the Nizami case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 9, Aynul Haque. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 27 May 2013.

In the Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 41, Investigation Officer Md Nurul Islam. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 28 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami
Md Aynul Haque, Prosecution witness 9, testified in support of charge no 2. The charge alleges that Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act, resulting in murders, rapes and deportation of victims as Crimes Against Humanity. He is  charged under section 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(g) read with Section 4(1), providing for accomplice liability and section 4(2), providing for command responsibility.  Continue reading

16 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mubarak Hossain Opening Statements and Mir Qasem Ali Formal Charge

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain
  2. Investigation of Mir Qasem Ali

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Prosecution submitted its opening statement. Prosecutor Zahid Imam read out a prepared statement describing Mobarak as the traitor of Akhaura. He described the role played by Jamaat-e-Islami, Islami Chattra Shangho (student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami), Peace Committee, Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams from 25 March to 16 December 1971. The Prosecution alleged that Mobarak was the Razakar commander of Shohilpur, Brahmanbaria in 1971 and that he assisted the Pakistani army in the commission of atrocities.  The Tribunal fixed 20 May for hearing the testimony of Prosecution witness 1 and asked the Defense to submit all the documents, if any, they intend to rely on by 20 May 2013.

In the investigation of Mir Qasem Ali the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charge to the registrar with all relevant documents. The Tribunal fixed 26 May for its decision on whether to take cognizance of the charges.

Administrative Matters
Today the Tribunal warned the lawyer of Mubarak Hossain and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury for misleading the court. On 15 May, Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena informed the Tribunal that on 19 and 21 May, Salauddin was required to go to Chittagong in order to appear in cases pending there on those days. However the Tribunal stated that it had found out that Salauddin had a case only on 22 May.

 

3 – 4 March 2013: ICT 1 and 2 Daily Summary – Brief Summaries Due to Hartal

A three day hartal has been called in Bangladesh. For safety reasons 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.

TRIBUNAL 1 SUMMARY

3 March 2013
Investigation of Mir Quasem Ali

On March 3, 2013 Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon submitted the progress report of the Investigation of Mir Quasem Ali and sought two months time to submit the formal charge. The Tribunal fixed April 24 for the submission of the formal charge.

Quasem Ali was brought to the ICT but was not produced before the Tribunal during the hearing.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
The Defense sought adjournment on behalf of Gholam Azam. Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum opposed the petition. The Tribunal rejected the Defense petition and asked the Prosecution to continue their Closing Arguments. Thereafter the Prosecution submitted their the Closing Arguments for the 9th day.

4 March 2013:
Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury
March 4 was fixed for recording the testimony of Prosecution witness 21; however, Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum submitted that the Prosecution could not produce the witness today. Thereafter the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the Salauddin Quader Chowdhury’s case until 12 March 2013.

Salauddin Quader Chowdhury was brought to the ICT but was not produced before the Tribunal.

 Contempt Proceedings against the Economist
On December 6, 2012 Tribunal 1 issued a notice asking them the Economist to show cause why contempt charges should not be brought against South Asian bureau chief Adam Roberts and the chief editor of the London based weekly. The Tribunal accused them of interfering with the ongoing trial and violating the privacy of a judge in conjunction with the alleged Skype controversy. The Economist was initially asked to reply within three weeks. On 3 February 2013 the Tribunal fixed 4 March 2013 for the submission of the Economist’s reply. On 4 March 2013 Barrister Mustafizur Rahman submitted that he has not yet received the written reply from his clients and sought two weeks additional time to submit the reply. The Tribunal accepted his prayer and fixed 25 March 2013 for the next hearing.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
The Prosecution placed their arguments on legal points in the Gholam Azam case and completed their Closing Arguments. Thereafter, the Tribunal asked the Defense to begin their closing arguments, but no senior defence counsel was present at the Tribunal. A junior Defense counsel sought one week adjournment for preparation, however, the Tribunal fixed 7 March 2013 for Defence closing arguments.

TRIBUNAL 2 SUMMARY
[We are compiling a summary of events in Tribunal for this week and will post information once it is complete]

Weekly Digest Issue No. 2 January 27-31

This week’s proceedings were dominated by the completion of Closing Arguments in the Sayedee case, heard by Tribunal 1. The Defense presented legal arguments regarding delay in prosecution, malafide intent, the elements of the crimes, and the value of out-of-court statements admitted into evidence under Section 19(2) of the ICT Act. The Prosecution submitted its reply and requested the death penalty against the Accused. The case is now under review and awaiting the Tribunal’s judgment.

Tribunal 2 had a light week, primarily dealing with administrative and evidentiary applications. They additionally heard arguments in pending contempt proceedings.

Read the full report here: Weekly Digest Issue No. 2 – Jan 27-31