Category Archives: Trial of Mubarak Hossain

22 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mubarak Hossain PW 1 Cross-Examination

22 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mubarak PW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Mobarak Hossain,  Accused Present

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena continued the cross-examination of Darul Islam, Prosecution witness- 1, who had testified in support of Charges 1, 2 and 3. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until 27 May 2013.

Cross-Examiantion
The Defense asked the witness whether he had any documentary evidence to show that he came to East Pakistan from West Pakistan on leave. Witness answered that at this moment he does not have such documents. The Defense claimed that a member of  the West Pakistani Army who was on leave would not receive his salary from East Pakistan. The Defense asked whether he had any documentary evidence to show that he had actually drawn his salary from East Pakistan. He replied that he did not. The Defense claimed that actually the witness did not actually come to East Pakistan on leave and did not draw his salary from here. The Witness claimed that in 1971 Mejor Sekendar was the area commander of Akhaura, Paharpur and Fakirmura while Defense claimed that Brigadier Sadullah of 23 Beluch regiment was the area commander. The Defense further stated that Sadullah’s serial number was 23 among the 195 Army personal who were detained in 1971. The witness answered that he is unaware of this. The Defense claimed that in 1971 Mejor Abdullah Khan, Mejor Sadek Newaz and Captain Jabed Iqbal worked in Akhaura, Paharpur and Fakirmura. The witness denied those assertions. The Defense claimed that in Brahmanbaria there were 4 units of army and Lieutenant colonel Khijir Hayat, Brigadier Sadullah and Lieutenant colonel Jaedi were the commanding officer of those units. The witness said he did not know about their command. Continue reading →

21 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 8, Chowdhury PW 40, Mubarak Hossain PW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mubarak Hossain

In the Nizami case the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witness  8, Khalilur Rahman, who testified in support of Charge 6. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until 26 May 2013.

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Kawser Shaikh, Prosecution witness 40, who testified regarding documents collected by the Investigation Officer. Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena then conducted the cross-examination.

In the Mubarak Hossain case the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Darul Islam, Prosecution witness- 1, who had testified in support of Charges 1, 2 and 3. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until tomorrow, 22 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Cross-examination
The Defense asked Prosecution witness 8, Khalilur Rahman, about  Dhulaura village, its location, where the witness stayed before entering the village, the location where he allegedly found the corpses of those killed, the location of the banyan tree in which he hid, etc. These questions were aimed at undermining the witness’ version of events and casting doubt on the assertion that he was actually present during the commission of the alleged crimes. The Defense asked the witness whether he saw any Pakistani Army members before 27 November 1971. He answered that he had seen them in Dhaka, but could not remember when between 25 March and 16 December 1971 he visited Dhaka. The Defense asked what the intention was behind going to Dhulaura village. He answered that his group went in order to meet with the freedom fighters of the village. Specifically he named Nizam Uddin Chairman, but he could not identify the location of Nizam Uddin’s freedom fighters’ camp.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that at about 3:30 am he heard the sounds of the army approaching. He opened the window and saw Nizami, other Razakars and members of the Pakistani occupation forces coming towards the house. The Defense claimed that at 3:30 in the morning it would have been too dark to recognize anyone through the window, particularly given there was no electricity in the area. The witness answered that there was moonlight. The Defense asserted that this was impossible given it was after Eid-ul-Fiter and the moon set at 1:23 am. Additionally they noted that the weather at that time was foggy, further undermining the witness’ testimony.

The Defense claimed that his initial interview with the Investigation Officer the witness did not acknowledge that Mazed was alive, and that he did not claim that he saw Nizami with other Razakars and members of the Pakistani Army. The Defense also claimed that the Witness did not originally allege that he saw members of the Pakistani Army enter a house with two young women. Additionally they stated that the witness did not tell the Investigation Officer that he knew Nizami before the Liberation War or that Nizami’s house was just 1 kilometer away from the witness’ house. The witness denied these suggestions and claimed that he had stated all these things during his initial interview.  TheDefense asked the witness about books written by Zohirul Huq Bishu and Rezaul Karim and claimed that the witness read the books and used them for his testimony. The witness denied the suggestion.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury
Kawser Shaikh, the official book-sorter of the divisional government library, testified as Prosecution witness 40. He testified as to the contents of documents being entered into evidence on behalf of the Prosecution.

Examination-in-Chief
Kowser Shaikh, Prosecution witness 40, exhibited photocopies of two news reports published in the Daily Pakistan in 1970, nine news reports published in the Daily Ajadi in 1970 and 17 news reports published in the Daily Ajadi in 1971.

Cross-Examination
The Defense claimed that on 10 March 2011 when the newspaper cuttings were seized from the divisional government library the witness did not hold the post of ‘Assistant Librarian in Charge.’  The Witness admitted that he did not hold that title and added that he was the book sorter. The Defense claimed that all  the headings (heading, date, paper name) of the exhibited newspaper reports (Exhibit 37, 38/1 to 38/25) are computer composed and that the reports were scanned. The witness admitted that the headlines were generated via computer and the reports scanned. The Defense claimed that the editor of the Daily Ajadi newspaper ran against Fazlul Qader Chowdhury (father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury) in the election of 1970.

Chief Prosecutor vs Mubarak Hossain
Cross-Examination
The Defense claimed that Rina Begum filed Case No. 26 against Mubarak Hossain in the Akhaura police on 28 May 2007. They stated that the witness also testified against Mubarak Hossain in that case as Prosecution witness 4. The Defense noted that Mubarak was acquitted in that case. The witness denied giving any testimony against Mobarak Hossain. The Defense asked if the witness knew that in Mubarak Ali had been acquitted on appeal. The witness said he did not know anything about the case. The Defense also claimed that the witness, as a non-commission officer following the Pakistan Military Rules, cannot obtain leave more than three months at a time. Witness denied this suggestion.

20 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 8, Mubarak Hossain PW 1

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Khalilur Rahman, Prosecution witness 8. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until tomorrow, 21 May 2013.

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Darul Islam, Prosecution witness- 1. The Tribunal then adjourned until tomorrow.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Prosecution Witness 8
Khalilur Rahman, Prosecution witness 8, testified in support of Charge 6. Under the Charge it is alleged that on 27 November 1971 Nizami and members of the Razakars and Pakistani military raided the house of Dr Abdul Awal and other adjacent houses in Dhulaura village. The charge further alleges that after the Pakistani army left, Nizami and his accomplices caught 22 survivors who they killed at the bank of the Ishamoti River. Nizami is charged for his involvement in murder as a Crime Against Humanity under Section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act and section 4(1) and 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Examination-in-Chief
Khalilur Rahman testified that in the middle of June he left for India to receive training as a freedom fight. He testified that he returned to Sujanagar, of Pabna, Bangladesh and stayed there 2 or 3 days. After that, at 12 or 12:30 on 27 November 1971, the witness said he took shelter at the house of Dr Abdul Awal located in Dhulaura village in the jurisdiction of Sathia police station. Khalilur testified that at about 3:30 am he heard the sounds of Army boots. He opened the window and saw Nizami, other Razakars and members of the Pakistani occupation force coming towards their house (where they took shelter). He testified that then he opened a North-facing door and went outside. He testified that then he began hearing the sounds of shooting people moving. He heard someone yelling at people to put their ‘hands up.’ 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.

 

Weekly Digest, Issue 12: April 7-11

This week Tribunal 1 continued to hear the Defence’s Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case. The Defence concluded their coverage of Charges 3 and 4, and requested one additional day to complete their arguments. The Defence however did not attend proceedings during hartal days. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the testimony of Prosecution witness 25. Additionally, the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charges against Mubarak Hossain and both Parties submitted their arguments regarding the impending of indictment of Hossain.

In Tribunal 2 the Defence for Ali Ahsan Mohadded Mujahid began their cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer. The case of Kamaruzzaman was repeatedly scheduled for the Defence’s Closing Arguments. However, the Senior Defence counsel did not attend on hartal days and therefore the case was adjourned until the following week. In the case against Abdul Alim the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witnesses 14 and 15.

It should be noted that hartals were called for the 8, 9, 10, and 11th of April. Due to security concerns our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days. Therefore our coverage of those days is compiled from media sources as well as discussion with the Defence and Prosecution.

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 12 – April 7-11