Category Archives: Tribunal 2

22 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Closing Arguments, Alim PW 21, Pre-trial issues and contempt

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against Selim Uddin
  2. Syed Md Qaisar: Bail Application
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Md Ashruzzaman Khan and  Moinuddin
  4. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid – Defense Closing Arguments
  5. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Cross-Examination of PW 21

The Tribunal deferred the contempt proceedings against Selim Uddin until 28 May 2013 for further order. It then moved on to hear the bail application filed on behalf of Syed Md Qaisar who is currently under investigation for war crimes and related offences that may have been committed during the 1971 War of Liberation. Mr Qaisar, a former BNP leader and a subsequent policy maker of President HM Ershad’s cabinet was arrested on a warrant issued by Tribunal-2 on 15 May 2013. Upon hearing the bail application, the court took a brief recess of twenty minutes before finally rejecting the application. Mr Qaisar was then sent to jail.

The Prosecution team in the cases against Md Ashrafuzaman Khan alias Nayeb Ali and Moinuddin notified the Tribunal that they had followed its order and published a notification in two widely circulated national dailies asking the two defendants to appear before the Tribunal. The notice was published on 14 May 2013 in the Daily Janakantha and on 15 May in the Daily Star. The notification announced that failure to appear within 10 days of such publication would result in the court ordering trials-in-absentia, as was done in the case of Abul Kalam Azad. The Tribunal stated that they would hear the case next on  27 May 2013.

In the case of Mujahid the Defense began their Closing Arguments. They began with arguments regarding the evidentiary aspects of the case and stated that senior Defense counsel Abdur Razzak will be later address the relevant legal arguments.

Finally, the Defense counsel for Abdul Alim conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 21. They primarily attacked the credibility of the witness and accused him of providing false testimony. The Defense further suggested that the witness provide the same testimony to the Investigation Officer during his original interview.  Continue reading →

21 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Abdul Alim PW 21

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – PW 21
  2. Contempt Proceedings Against Selim Uddin and Others

Today the Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness in the case of Abdul Alim. After the Prosecution completed their questioning the Defense requested adjournment for the day, seeking time to prepare his cross-examination. The Tribunal agreed and scheduled the cross-examination for the following day.

The Tribunal also adjourned the contempt proceedings against Jamaat-e-Islam leaders Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman Azad and Rafiqul Islam Khan after hearing a petition for additional time. It may be mentioned that the contempt proceedings were initiated by the Tribunal against the Jamaat-trio in February, following comments regarding the Tribunal made at a public engagement the day before the verdict in Qader Molla was issued. Selim Uddin is the only one of the three who has been produced before the court after being arrested. He has filed a separate written explanation through his lawyer. The other two have not been detained by the police, despite the Tribunal having issued an arrest warrant for them.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim
Mr Abdul Hamid Sakidar provided circumstantial evidence as Prosecution witness 21 in the case against Abdul Alim. During examination-in-chief by the Prosecution the witness testified that he was a resident of Sakidarpara during the war in 1971 and that he was 15 or 16 years old at the time. He testified that Abdul Alim was one of the key persons in the formation of the Peace Committee in the Jaipurhat area and acted as its chairman. Sakidar asserted that the Pakistan army killed many people and also burned villages in his area during the war. He stated that local collaborators were also part of these raids.

The witness claimed stated that Alim, along with Muslim League members and Jamaat activists, occupied the Shaon Lal Bazla Godighar (office) in his area. He stated that the Razakar forces were later trained in this godighar and that the Pakistani Army also located its camp there. The witness incriminated the accused by stating that the Pakistani army and the Razakars used to kill people at the instruction of Alim. Sakidar stated that eleven people from his locality were apprehended by the Pakistani Army and the Razakars, and that they were then taken to the north side of Baroghati Pond near Sakidarpara. These eleven people, whose faces were painted black, were then shot to death at Mr Alim’s instruction. Six of the dead bodies were buried under a mango tree thereby and five others were buried under a lychee tree at the south end of the pond.

The witness claimed stated that about after 4 to 5 months after Bangladesh declared its victory over Pakistan about 150 skeletons were recovered from that very pond.

The witness then positively identified the accused in the courtroom.

20 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Abdul Alim PW 20

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Prosecution witness 20

Today the Prosecution called Prosecution witness 20 to give testimony in the case of Abdul Alim. His examination-in-chief was conducted by Mr Rana Das Gupta. The defense counsel Mr Ahsanul Huq Hena summarily concluded the cross-examination by asking one question.

Prosecution Witness 20: Mr Sardar Md Abdul Hafiz
Examination-in-Chief
The witness is 55 years old and is the brother of a former freedom fighter who has been missing since the war. The witness provided circumstantial evidence. He stated he was was 13 or 14 years of age in 1971. The Prosecution asked the witness about the elections of 1970. He testified that Dr Mofiz Chowdhury, Mr Abbas Ali Khan and Mr Abdul Alim participated in the election of 1970 and that  Chowdhury was elected as the Awami League candidate. He stated he does not remember the party that Alim had represented in the aforesaid parliamentary election.

The witness testified that two of his brothers, Sardar Md Abdul Wazed and Sardar Abdul Awal both joined the War of Liberation in 1971 as freedom fighters. He asserted that because of his brothers’ participation in the independence movement the Pakistani Army and local “Biharis” often raided their house. On 25 April 1971 he stated that two of his brothers, Sardar Abdul Majid and Sardar Abul Bashar, were shot and taken to his cousin Md Shamsul Alam Bashar’s house for shelter. On 26 April at around 9 am., the witness said he heard massive gunfire and arson taking place about one and a half miles away. Upon hearing the gunshots, the witness, his brothers and cousin went on to hide inside the house. Later at around 5 pm, they came out after the shooting had stopped.

The witness also testified that during the first week of September in 1971 he was in classes at Ramdeo Bazla High School when they began to hear shooting. The school head master Mr Moajjem Hossain told everyone to flee. The witness said that on his way back home he saw two trucks surrounded by Pakistani Army. He said that 11 young men were being held on those trucks and that their faces had been inked. After coming home, the witness’ mother asked him to check if his two brothers were in the truck. The witness went back to check but did not see them. The Pakistani Army then got in the trucks and rushed out of Faridpur by crossing its eastern boundary. The witness stated he did not know anything else that occurred. He stated that after the liberation war one of his brothers came home while the others never returned.

The witness claimed that he previously provided his full testimony to the Investigation Officer.

Cross-Examination
The Defense counsel only asked whether the Investigation Officer read out to the witness his recorded statement. The witness said that it had not been recorded.

19 May 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Charge Dismissed against Ziauddin

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against Ahmed Ziauddin

Today Tribunal 2 passed an order in the contempt proceedings against Ahmed Ziauddin, disposing off the matter but making an official observation. The contempt proceedings were initiated suo moto by the Tribunal on 3 January 2013, following the leakage of Skype conversations between the former Chairman of Tribunal 1 and Ziauddin, a Brussels based legal expert and pro-trial activist. News of the Skype controversy was first reported by The Economist. The Tribunal brought charges of contempt against The Economist, which are still pending. The complete conversations were then printed by the local Daily Amar Desh, which has been shut down by the government following the arrest of its chief editor Mr Mahmudur Rahman on charges related to the Skype controversy. The Tribunal took the contents of the conversation into judicial notice during the hearing of a defense application praying for a retrial in the interest of justice. All applications for retrial were rejected. However, in that ruling the Tribunal noted that if the comments allegedly made by Ziauddin were authentic, they cast the International Crimes Tribunal in negative light by making it look like it lacked independence and was a dictated body. The Tribunal was also critical about Ziauddin’s alleged comments regarding Judge Shahinur Islam, a judge of Tribunal-2, and termed the same as completely unacceptable.

Upon the request of the Tribunal Mr Ahmed Ziauddin submitted his written explanation through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs  after about four and a half months. Today the Tribunal disposed off the contempt proceedings and decided that they would not proceed with them any further. The Tribunal stated that the truthfulness of the leaked conversations cannot be determined and also noted that Ziauddin neither admitted nor denied the allegations. Nevertheless, the Tribunal observed that it would be unjust to arrive at a decision in regards the authenticity of the Skype documents based on evidence which in itself has been obtained illegally through hacking. The contempt matter against the Brussels based expert has thus been closed and the judges stated in its judgment that it merited no further steps.

The court then adjourned for the day.

16 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Prosecution Closing Arguments

The Prosecution presented their key legal arguments in the case against Mujahid. Prosecutor Afroz addressed a range of legal issues in conjunction Charges 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. A written outline of the arguments was provided as reference for the Tribunal. The Defense counsel objected because the cover photograph of the outline showed numerous skulls. The Defense argued that such a picture is unnecessary, inappropriate and prejudicial. The Prosecution disagreed, claiming that there is nothing in the law or rules of procedure prohibiting such photographs. The judges agreed with the Prosecutor’s submission, adding that such a photograph will neither be detrimental nor advantageous to the case against the accused and will have no impact on the judicial process.

Prosecutor’s Arguments:
The Prosecution presented arguments on the following issues:

  1.  Legal argument on the absence of victims’ dead body.
  2. Legal argument on ‘extermination ‘ in contrast to ‘murder’.
  3. The doctrine of superior responsibility and how it has been established by the evidence admitted.
  4. Evaluation of documentary evidences and further evaluation of the charges.

The Actus Reus of Murder and Necessity of Victim’s Body as Evidence (relevant to Charges 1 and 5)
The Prosecution began by emphasizing that the bodies of the victims in Charges 1 and 5 were recovered. She argued that the actus reus, of murder requires that the Prosecution prove that the killing itself occurred. Where the body is not found or recovered the killing remains unproved, resulting in the failure of the Prosecution’s case. In this case, Prosecutor Afroz argued that the Defense cannot claim that the actus reus in Charges 1 and 5 has not been proven by reason of failure to find the body of the victims. Continue reading →