Category Archives: Trial of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

22 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination of Prosecution Witness 28

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit. The witness is the son of an alleged victim of the Accused.

Prosecution Examination-in-Chief
The witness first provided personal details about his education and where he lives.  He testified that in 1971 he was 27 years old and a teacher at the R.A.B.M High School in Rangunia, Chittagong. He testified that on 25 March 1971 there was widespread political unrest in the country and activists from the Muslim League in his area torched and looted houses of the Hindu community and additionally raped many women.

At the time his father worked writing GDs, Complaints and Diaries. Around 10 or 11 April 1971 his father decided that the family should seek shelter at Khetro Mohon Biswash’s home, which was 3 or 4 miles away from their house. The father remained at their home.

Poritosh testified that on 14 April 1971, after the death of the Principal of Kundashori, Notun Chandra Shing, he went to visit his father and asked him to leave the house and return to Biswash’s home with Poritosh. His father refused to leave. The witness testified that after that he saw Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, along with members of the Pakistani Army, come to the house. He testified that he hid himself in a bush and watched as  Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and Panjabi soldiers engaging in an altercation with his father. At one point the witness alleged that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury shouted to the soldiers “that person is dangerous, kill him!” Poritosh testified that after hearing this the Panjabi soldiers told his father to go into the house, but when he turned the soldiers shot him two times in the back. His father fell and the soldiers then covered him with two blankets which they covered with some sort of chemical powder and lit on fire. The witness stated that once the soldiers left to inform his family members about his father’s death. They later left the country for India because they felt unsafe. Continue reading →

21 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury –Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard both the direct and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 27, Dr. A.K.M Shafiullah. Shafiullah was first a medical student and later the Assistant Registrar at the Chittagong Medical College in 1971.

Prosecution’s Examination-in-Chief
The witness testified that he obtained his medical degree from Chittagong Medical College in 1970 and that he joined to Surgical Unit 1 of the Chittagong Medical College as an institutional trainee. He became a medical officer in the same ward in July of 1971, and in August was assigned to the post of Assistant Register. He testified that toward the end of September he received a call around 10pm that he was needed urgently at the hospital. He arrived at the ward within half an hour and found army, police and others there. He further testified that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, son of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, was seriously injured. According to his recollection Chowdhury was wounded in the leg and and received primary treatment at the hospital, staying 3 or 4 days. The witness said that he later heard that Salauddin was taken to Dhaka or outside of the country for better treatment. He stated that he had been interviewed by the Investigating Officer identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Defense’s Cross-Examination of Witness 27
The Defense began by questioning the witness about his personal details, including where he lived during his employment at the hospital and the location of his home district. They then asked him about his work at the hospital. Shafiullah testified that he is aware of the rules and regulations for the admission of an injured at the medical college hospital. He testified about the staff hierarchy at the hospital and identified the director in 1971 as Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel. He named the Principal, Head of Medicine and Head of Surgery in 1971. Continue reading →

Weekly Digest 10: March 24-28

We apologize for the delay in publishing this week’s digest.

The Tribunal was in recess on 26 March 2013 in honor of Bangladesh’s independence day. Additionally, opposition parties declared hartals on the 27th and 28th of March. Therefore our coverage of those days is gathered from media sources as well as discussions with the Defense and Prosecution. Our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days due to security concerns.

Tribunal 1:
Proceedings in Tribunal 1 continued to center on the Defense’s Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case this week, with counsel completing their submissions regarding factual issues and Charge 5. Senior Defense counsel Abdur Razzaq is scheduled to present arguments on legal issues and Charges 1-4 next week. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witnesses 22 and 23. Additionally, The Tribunal heard Chowdhury’s Defense application for police escort to the Tribunal on hartal days.

Tribunal 2:
Tribunal 2 dealt with two cases this week. In the Kamaruzzaman case, Defense witness 5 completed providing testimony, and the Prosecution began Closing Arguments. The Tribunal also heard testimony from Prosecution witness 17, the Investigating Officer, in the Mujahid case.

Please read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 10 – March 24-28

Weekly Digest Issue 9: March 17-21

We apologize for the delay in publishing this week’s digest.

Hartals again interrupted our coverage of the ICT trials. Sunday, 17 March 2013, was a national holiday, and the Tribunal was in recess. Hartals (strikes) were called by the opposition party coalition on Monday and Tuesday, and due to security concerns our researchers were unable to attend. Therefore, our summaries for those days are drawn from media sources as well as conversations with the Defense and Prosecution. On Thursday, both Tribunal 1 and Tribunal 2 adjourned early, after it was announced that the President of Bangladesh had passed away on Wednesday.

Tribunal 1
In Tribunal 1, the Defense and the Prosecution in the Gholam Azam case presented in-depth arguments regarding the applicability of the Doctrine of Command Responsibility to civilians. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witness 21, who began providing testimony the previous week. The Defense for Sayedee presented two additional applications: one for bail, and the other or certified copies of documents from two criminal cases in the district court system. The Tribunal also heard the examination of Prosecution witness 3 in the Nizami case. Finally, citing the growing insecurity in Dhaka, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury applied for police escort to the Tribunal on hartal days.

Tribunal 2
Tribunal 2 also experienced significant delays due to hartals, absence of counsel, and illness of witnesses. The court heard the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 13 in the Abdul Alim case and granted an extension for the production of a Defense witness in the Kamaruzzaman case. Additionally, the Tribunal dealt with ongoing contempt proceedings against Jamaat leaders.

Please read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 9 – March 17-21

17 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Closing Arguments, Prosecution’s Reply

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Request for Adjournment
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs, Gholam Azam: Prosecution’s Reply to Defense Closing Arguments, Defense Rebuttal

Because today was fixed for the Prosecution’s reply in the Gholam Azam case, Ahsanul Huq Hena, Defense counsel for Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, requested adjournment of the Chowdhury case until 21 April 2013. The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings for the day and scheduled the case to be heard tomorrow, 18 April 2013.

Today in the Gholam Azam case the Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s reply to the Defense’s Closing Arguments. Prosecutors Sultan Mahmud Simon, Turin Afroz and Haider Ali submitted arguments. After the completion of Prosecution’s submissions the Defense was given 25 minutes for their rebuttal. After hearing both sides the Tribunal officially took the case under consideration awaiting verdict.

Prosecution’s Reply
Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon began by arguing that counsel for the Accused had presented only one theory of defense, being that Gholam Azam had supported Pakistan during the Liberation War with the purpose of maintaining the unity of Pakistan. Simon questioned whether such support could be considered lawful after Bangladesh’s declaration of independence on 26 March 1971. The Prosecution submitted that the Tribunal must consider the entirety of the case against Gholam Azam in light of the historical events of 1971. He submitted that Prosecution proved each element of the alleged crimes through sufficient oral and documentary evidence. The Prosecution also asserted that paragraph 6 of the Formal Charge discussed the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility. Prosecutor Simon read out sections 9, 10, 16 and 19 of the ICT Act of 1973 and talked about judicial notice.

The Tribunal Chairman asked whether the Prosecution had exhibited the documents (including some reports published in international media regarding the atrocities committed in Bangladesh in 1971) referred to in the Formal Dharge. The Prosecution replied that seven books had been submitted and that the Tribunal had been asked to take them under judicial notice. The Defense dissented and claimed that the Prosecution did not exhibit the documents that the Tribunal is specifically requesting.

The Prosecution argued that Gholam Azam supported Pakistan despite being aware of the atrocities committed by the Pakistani army on 25 March 1971. Prosecutor Simon referred to ‘Jibone Ja Dekhalm’ (Exhibit-H) and also submitted that the atrocities committed by the Pakistani occupation forces were known internationally at the time. The Prosecution claimed that the Defense failed to produce a single document showing that Gholam Azam criticized the atrocities committed by the Pakistani occupation forces. Prosecutor Simon claimed that this proves Gholam Azam’s involvement in and support for the atrocities.  Continue reading →